Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 29th November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 View all Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 November 2018 - (29 Nov 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that electronic devices should be turned to silent or turned off. Tea or coffee is not allowed in the Committee Room during sittings.
We now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today is available in the room and on the Bill website. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues.
A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within the group, and a Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on an amendment, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments if they are tabled.
Members should note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list, but decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on the relevant amendments.
Clause 1
Power to make healthcare payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This is a short, sensible Bill to ensure that we are prepared, whatever the outcome of leaving the European Union. The Bill confers powers on the Secretary of State to make and to arrange for payments to be made in respect of the cost of healthcare provided outside the United Kingdom. It will allow for the funding of reciprocal healthcare arrangements for UK nationals living in the EU, the European Economic Area and Switzerland.
The Bill is part of the Government’s preparation for EU exit and will allow us to take the necessary steps to broadly continue reciprocal healthcare arrangements or to otherwise support UK residents to obtain healthcare when they move to or visit the EU. It is an important and necessary piece of legislation, so that the British public can look forward to the future with the confidence that they will get the healthcare they need when they need it.
Clause 1 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to make payments and to arrange for those payments to be made to fund healthcare abroad. I will start by setting out for the Committee why it is necessary for the Government to seek that power.
Currently, there are limited domestic powers in relation to the funding of healthcare abroad. The existing reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU are based on EU law. Reciprocal arrangements with other third countries at this time do not involve making payments, as they are based on waiver agreements. In line with the Public Accounts Committee concordat, the clause provides statutory authorisation for the expenditure in relation to future funding of healthcare abroad. It enables the funding of any reciprocal healthcare arrangements that the UK may enter into with EU member states, non-EU states and international organisations, such as the EU, as well as unilateral funding of treatment abroad if needed. It is a vital power to ensure a smooth transition post EU exit.
As a number of colleagues set out on Second Reading, including the Chair of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, it is essential that the Government take appropriate measures to support a reciprocal healthcare arrangement and agreement with the EU. The Bill and the clause are crucial to that endeavour. Our arrangements with the EU are by their nature reciprocal and require a mutual understanding, and continuation of the arrangements are therefore a matter for negotiations between ourselves and the EU. It is incumbent upon any responsible Government to take forward responsible measures, and the Bill will ensure that we can broadly continue reciprocal healthcare arrangements, where agreed, with the EU. It is the Government’s ambition to ensure that we have the powers and the legal basis to implement comprehensive reciprocal healthcare agreements with other countries around the world, where that would be cost-effective and support wider health and foreign policy objectives after the EU exit.
Clause 1 means that we are ready to respond to any scenario concerning future reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU on exit day. In a deal scenario, we would use the power to fund a future reciprocal healthcare arrangement with the EU following the implementation period. In the unlikely no deal scenario, our offer to all EU member states would be to maintain reciprocal healthcare arrangements on a bilateral basis for at least a transitional period. We would use the power to fund those arrangements.
On 2016-17 estimates, the United Kingdom spends about £630 million per year on the EU system of reciprocal healthcare. That is an accrued liability where payments are made to individual member states on a monthly basis in arrears. Once we leave the EU, the clause will allow the Government to continue to fund such a system of reciprocal healthcare, subject to any agreement with the EU and/or EU member states.
The payment system for funding reciprocal healthcare arrangements is set out in EU law. In the future, detailed provisions could be given effect domestically by the regulations under clause 2(1), which we will discuss later, and the payments could be made by exercising clause 1.
Of course, the spending of any public money is and should be closely monitored. The money spent under clause 1 would be no exception to that rule—the usual safeguards apply. As with all departmental expenditure, it would need to be authorised by the Treasury supply process and will be included in the Department’s annual estimates, as well as being included in the annual resource accounts that are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The exact arrangements will be provided for under the future reciprocal arrangements, which are obviously a matter for negotiation. It is envisaged that the current arrangements will be used as a basis for future arrangements with the EU.
It may be helpful to the Committee to look briefly at how the current process of payments works. At the moment, if a UK national were to injure themselves on a holiday in France, they would present their European health insurance card, commonly known as EHIC, at the hospital and receive the necessary treatment. The hospital would then raise an invoice for the treatment with its liaison body. In the case of the United Kingdom, that liaison body is the NHS Business Services Authority. The French liaison body would then submit a claim for the cost of the treatment to the NHS Business Services Authority based on receipt of the invoice from the hospital.
Once the NHS Business Services Authority is satisfied that the claim is accurate and valid, the UK would then release the payment to France, alongside any other claims received for that month. Our intention is to provide for those administrative and operational facets through the regulation-making powers in clause 2(1), which I referred to a moment ago and which we will discuss later. Clause 1 will provide for the payment element.
As is clear to all Committee members, the UK Government’s ambition is to have a reciprocal healthcare agreement with the EU, which should include reciprocal healthcare for state pensioners, UK participation in the EHIC scheme, and co-operation on planned treatment. We expect that that will continue to involve our making payments—for example, on the hundreds of thousands of British citizens who require treatment each year during their holidays in Europe. It also reflects current arrangements, whereby we receive money from EU member states when healthcare has been provided in the United Kingdom—for example, when a tourist to the United Kingdom has presented their EHIC.
It is, of course, our ambition to secure a future deal with the EU on the matter. Should that not be possible, we would seek to agree a broad continuation of the current system with EU member states on a bilateral basis for at least a transitional period. The Bill also provides flexibility to fund healthcare even where there is no bilateral agreement, which we might explore using in exceptional circumstances to secure healthcare for certain groups of people.
At the outset of the Committee’s line-by-line scrutiny, I put on the record my thanks to all hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading and who were supportive of the Bill in principle, and I thank hon. Members for their attendance today. I am also grateful, as I am sure everybody is, to the witnesses who attended on Tuesday. I put on the record my thanks to them, not only for giving us their valuable insight but for supporting the Bill.
Hundreds of thousands of people rely on reciprocal arrangements to access healthcare every year. Ensuring that the Government have a clear legal basis on which to fund these arrangements in the future is an essential component of allowing us to meet our shared goals in this area. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Healthcare and healthcare agreements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Hammond
This clause goes to the heart of the purpose of the Bill. It will ensure that the Government have the discretionary powers they need to respond flexibly to all possible outcomes of EU exit; to make regulations in relation to making or arranging payments in respect of healthcare provided abroad; to make regulations to support the provision of healthcare outside the United Kingdom; and to make regulations to give effect to complex international healthcare agreements. The Government can use such regulations to confer or delegate functions. The clause also provides that the Government can issue directions to a person about exercising functions as circumstances require. The powers in the clause are needed to provide the Government with both the flexibility and capability to implement detailed and complex arrangements concerning healthcare abroad. These powers ensure that we are taking the appropriate measures to be able to respond to the multiple EU exit scenarios.
As I remarked earlier regarding the powers in clause 1, as a responsible Government we believe that it is important to take forward appropriate measures. The Bill, and the clause, will ensure that we can broadly continue reciprocal arrangements with the EU where agreed, or, if necessary, with individual EU states on a bilateral basis. The Bill will support the potential strengthening of existing reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries abroad and around the world, and will potentially add to their number as part of future health and trade policy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire, who supported this facet of the Bill on Second Reading.
Facilitating the provision of healthcare for UK nationals abroad can be incredibly complex, and the scope of these powers necessarily reflects that. For example, the EHIC system is a broad and generous scheme for all UK and EU nationals. It covers a variety of different types of care, including emergency care, ongoing routine maternity care or a trip to a GP while abroad for someone with a chronic condition.
As I mentioned, it is our intention to negotiate a future arrangement with the EU that provides broad continuation of the current reciprocal healthcare system, including our participation in the EHIC scheme. That is a complex arrangement to provide for, and requires suitable domestic implementation to ensure that it operates effectively. It is therefore necessary and appropriate for the Government to seek suitably flexible powers to make regulations and directions that will allow us to implement such a scheme. It is also appropriate that these powers should afford us the capacity to implement and make provision for similar arrangements with other countries all over the world where this would be cost-effective and would support wider health and foreign policy objectives. The powers in the clause ensure that we are taking the appropriate measures to be able to respond to multiple EU exit scenarios, including the making of regulations for, or in connection with, the funding of provision for healthcare abroad and for implementing healthcare agreements.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. First of all, I join the Minister in thanking those witnesses who came and gave evidence on Tuesday. There were certainly some helpful comments that we will no doubt return to in Committee.
As was made clear on Second Reading, this is a very important piece of legislation. More than 190,000 UK expats live in the EU and of course there are 50 million British visits within the EEA countries each year: all those people want clarity about what the arrangements are in the event that they will need healthcare. So we do not oppose the principle of the Bill. We absolutely agree that it is important that there are arrangements in place after 29 March 2019 and into the future. However, we are concerned about a number of issues, some of which I referred to on Second Reading and some of which we will discuss today.
It is fair to say that there are concerns about the breadth of powers that the Secretary of State is requesting in clause 2; I do not believe they would be countenanced at all under normal circumstances. I appreciate that we are not in normal circumstances and I am grateful to the Minister for setting out how he envisages those powers will be used in practice. We are not here to judge things just on what the situation is at the moment, but on how the powers could be used at some point in the future. With regard to that, the Minister referred to this Bill being used possibly to further foreign policy and trade objectives. When he responds, I would be grateful if he expanded on what he has in mind.
To compound our issues about the scope of the regulations, we are also concerned about our lack of opportunity to scrutinise them; we will return to those concerns when I move amendment 2 to clause 5 later on. Of course, we are not alone in having concerns about the scope of this clause and the lack of clarity about how the powers might be used. In the evidence session, Raj Jethwa, Director of Policy at the British Medical Association, said:
“We would like to see much more emphasis on scrutiny of all the discussions in the arrangements going forward.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 6.]
We will certainly push for that today.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place went further than that, describing the scope of clause 2 as “breath-taking”. As that Committee correctly pointed out, there is no limit to the amount of any payments, to who can be funded or to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer or delegate functions to anyone, anywhere, and primary legislation can be amended for these purposes.
It is also worth noting that although this legislation has been presented as a Bill to enable us, as far as possible, to retain the arrangements that we already have—who would disagree with that?—the powers conferred by the clause, as I think has been conceded by the Minister, can go far beyond the current EU and EEA countries that we are primarily concerned about.
We consider the powers in the clause to be inappropriately wide, if they are not going to be subject to the correct levels of scrutiny. At this eleventh hour, we understand why a certain level of flexibility is being sought by the Government, but with that request comes a responsibility to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is exercised.
Rather than oppose the clause in its entirety, we believe that the appropriate remedy would be to ensure that any regulations introduced under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will return to that point when we consider amendment 2 to clause 5.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that these powers are flexible. Part of the reason for that is that there may well be a need to anticipate the sort of bilateral arrangements that we put in place in the future—notwithstanding our hopes that we will secure a continuation of the current reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which is our ambition. When we come to debate not only the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but clause 5—when the discussion on scrutiny of these arrangements should take place—I will seek to reassure him that the procedures in place will allow for the usual and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the powers being too broad. The Bill has a very focused purpose: to ensure that the reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which benefit UK nationals abroad and also EU and non-EU nationals in the UK, are continued. He also challenged me on the issue of potential future trade or foreign policy objectives. As he will know, we already have arrangements with a number of countries outside the EU, and the Bill must have the flexibility for the continuation and updating of those arrangements. The matter will clearly be of operational importance—potentially, it will be a policy decision after exiting the EU. Were a UK holidaymaker going abroad to a non-EU country, they would clearly expect the Government to have in place—or to have the potential to put in place—the reciprocal healthcare arrangements that would allow them to be treated should that be necessary.
I hope those words will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that the clause needs to stand part of the Bill. We can have the appropriate discussion about scrutiny in somewhat more depth when we debate clause 5.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Meaning of “healthcare” and “healthcare agreement”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Hammond
Mr Speaker—sorry, Mr Stringer: although who knows what may happen later next year?
Stephen Hammond
One that I am sure would be welcomed by Members on both sides of the Committee.
Clause 3 is very simple and sets out the definition of “healthcare” and “healthcare agreement” used within the Bill. The definition of healthcare is modelled on the definition provided in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which we have adapted to include the additional element of ancillary care. That is to reflect where current arrangements provide for ancillary costs, such as travel, which do not fit strictly within the definition of healthcare. As in France, this is for use in circumstances where residents are reimbursed a contribution of their travel costs when attending healthcare appointments.
I would like to clarify that access to social care in England would not be provided for through any reciprocal healthcare agreement. It is up to each individual country to determine what is available through the public healthcare system, just as we do with the NHS. The clause would enable individuals to access healthcare on those terms.
A healthcare agreement could be made either bilaterally or multilaterally, or it could be an agreement between states, countries or multilateral organisations. Such agreements provide access to agreed forms of healthcare when individuals from one country seek healthcare in the other, and vice versa. They also provide for how the funding will be shared between parties. Funding could mean a direct payment, arrangements to waive or set off costs, or other arrangements to cover costs. Clause 3 is short but important.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Data processing
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out paragraph (d).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to clause 4. At this time of great uncertainty, when the nature of our future relationship with the European Union is still unknown, we welcome the intention outlined in the Bill to give some confidence to those who currently rely on the reciprocal health arrangements between the UK and the nations of the EU and EEA. We are only surprised that the Bill has taken so long to come before us.
The scope of the Bill is designed to cater for all possible outcomes of the UK and EU negotiations. The intention is that, deal or no deal, the Bill will empower the Secretary of State to negotiate future reciprocal healthcare arrangements between the nations of the UK and the EU, and any other such nation as is desired. Providing for pensioners, visitors, students and workers to live, work, study and travel in EU member states with complete peace of mind regarding the provision of healthcare is a priority for Labour. We therefore recognise the need for the Bill.
While understanding that any future agreement must allow for the smooth transference of data for the achievement of the best possible outcomes for patients, we believe it is also crucial that the Bill provides robust powers to protect personal data. Health records contain both personal and sensitive data, and access to such information must be allowed sparingly and only for medical purposes. Access to personal data should be available to health professionals who are bound by a duty of confidentiality on the basis of need to know. The Data Protection Act 2018 outlines the key principles relating to the protection of data; compliance with the spirit of those principles is fundamental to good data protection practice, and embodies the spirit of lawful, fair and transparent use of data.
Currently, the General Data Protection Regulation places restrictions on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU and EEA. As the UK leaves the EU, we will not automatically enjoy existing protections; indeed, this Bill provides powers for negotiations to take place with nation states across the world, to reach agreement on a bilateral basis. That makes it imperative, in our view, that the Bill protects against potential misuse of personal data.
Clause 4 outlines the detail of how data will be processed for the purposes of the Bill. We have noted the wide-ranging powers to be given to authorised persons, who may
“process personal data held by the person in connection with any of the person’s functions where that person considers it necessary for the purposes of implementing, operating or facilitating the doing of anything under or by virtue of this Act.”
We are not satisfied that sufficient safeguards are in place when defining an authorised person for the purposes of the Bill. We have listened carefully to the concerns of the British Medical Association, and share that organisation’s concerns about the lack of detail in the definition of “authorised person” in subsection (6). Mr Jethwa, representing the BMA, said in his evidence to this Committee that data
“has to be accessed on a need-to-know basis, and only when it is in line with patients’ expectations. Data sharing has to be transparent. We would be absolutely concerned that any safeguards meet those criteria and principles. I do not think the details in the Bill make that clear at the moment. We would like to see more clarity and detail about that in future.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 5, Q14.]
Mr Henderson, from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, said that although he recognises that there must be a “free flow” of data,
“individual patients’ data must be protected”,
and that
“it is slightly hard to say whether there is sufficient protection there or not”.––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 5, Q13.]
He is correct: it is hard to see that there are sufficient protections in the Bill. This is a hugely important issue that needs to be fully addressed.
With that in mind, we are of the view that subsection (6)(d) should be deleted, principally because it gives the Secretary of State a power—to authorise private health companies to access patient data—that is far too wide ranging. We believe that removing that paragraph protects personal data and achieves a balance, giving more confidence to patients while allowing the smooth transfer of data to designated qualified personnel.
The right to privacy and access to healthcare are rights that we value, and the one should not be conditional on the other. We wish to ensure that the Bill gives UK patients, and patients from the EU, full confidence that their personal information will not be shared inappropriately. That remains the case whether healthcare is received in the UK or overseas as part of a reciprocal healthcare agreement. As we leave the European Union, citizens accessing medical care as part of a reciprocal health agreement need to be sure that their personal data will not be shared inappropriately. Without that assurance, citizens may be discouraged from seeking medical assistance.
Stephen Hammond
I thank the hon. Member for Burnley for moving this amendment, because it gives me the opportunity to set out clearly and in some depth why we have chosen to include clause 4(6)(d) in the Bill. I want to lay out the reasoning for our concerns about this amendment. I hope that I will be able to reassure her of the vital importance of paragraph (d), and that it is necessary and appropriate, because we will be unable to accept the amendment.
Reciprocal healthcare agreements are made possible by close, consensual co-operation of different parties and bodies, such as the Department of Health and Social Care, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Ministers of devolved Administrations, healthcare providers and all their opposite numbers in EU and EEA countries. Since the Bill is about the provision of healthcare, it would be remiss of Her Majesty’s Government to exclude healthcare providers, either those in the United Kingdom or those in other countries, from the list with authority and sanction to process and share data. Given that it is the Government’s position that in the agreement with the EU, future arrangements for the provision of healthcare abroad will reflect existing ones, it is worth reflecting on the place of healthcare providers in these processes, to illustrate the role they play in the commission and delivery of healthcare abroad.
Under the S2 route, a UK resident may decide to seek planned treatment abroad. As part of the ordinary procedure, the UK resident must visit a healthcare provider in the UK. The clinician would then provide written evidence that the person has had a full clinical assessment, which must clearly state why the treatment is needed in their circumstances and what the clinician considers to be a medically justifiable time period within which they should be treated again, based on their circumstances. As is clear under existing arrangements, this function can only be served by a medically trained healthcare provider. This paperwork is then passed on to NHS England or the comparable authority in the devolved Administrations for further processing. Many of those organisations are provided for by subsection (6)(c). Members will, I hope, understand that the lack of qualification around the term “provider of healthcare” is appropriate and necessary at this stage, given that future arrangements are not yet clear.
If the Government are adequately to fulfil the purposes outlined in clause 1, they need to be able to facilitate and fund healthcare for UK persons, for whom they feel responsible, whether the provider is based in the UK or overseas. In that connection, I think it is worth pointing out that the current reciprocal healthcare arrangements allow UK persons to access treatment from providers of healthcare in another country that are not NHS bodies or comparable state providers in another country, as defined by UK healthcare legislation. That might include an optometrist or a dentist, many of whom fall outside the state healthcare system.
Subsection 6(d) proposes to ensure that other types of healthcare providers are authorised to process personal data under the Bill, but most importantly that NHS bodies are able, where necessary, to share personal data for the purposes of the Bill with healthcare providers based outside the UK. Simply, if such providers were not also considered authorised, it would be impossible for healthcare commissioned, implemented, facilitated or funded by the UK to be authorised to be rendered abroad.
The hon. Lady is concerned that the clause will allow private providers access to patient data and the powers to process it. She should be reassured that that is already legal and proper under existing arrangements governed by EU regulations. Under existing reciprocal healthcare arrangements, UK persons are able to receive treatment in another country on the same basis as a local resident of that country. That includes healthcare or other treatments given by healthcare providers other than those that fall within the scope of domestic UK healthcare legislation.
After the fact and on return to the UK, the person would be able to seek reimbursement, where appropriate, from the relevant UK authorities. It is worth noting that the person who sought treatment abroad would typically only be reimbursed up to the amount it would have cost under the NHS. It would be for the person, not the Department of Health and Social Care, to bear the financial risk of any additional cost.
Since our desire to continue existing arrangements is shared by those on both sides of the House, I do not feel that the clause has inappropriate powers. To further allay any other fears, I remind members of the Committee that the clause contains safeguards to guard against any misuse of data. The Bill gives powers to providers, either in state healthcare systems or private ones, to process solely where it is necessary for the limited purpose of funding or arranging healthcare abroad—nothing more.
All processing of the data by all parties must also comply with existing data protection legislation. That is a crucial safeguard under UK data legislation. Data concerning healthcare is personal or specific category data. That can only be processed where specific conditions are met, namely that processing is necessary for the purpose of healthcare and in the public interest. Members will recognise that clause 4(6)(d) does not represent a deviation or new departure from existing arrangements and simply allows for the Government to maintain or improve those arrangements in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in after exit.
In closing, were the amendment agreed, it could risk patient outcomes by excluding providers of healthcare from the list of authorised persons. The hon. Lady expressed some concerns, and I hope that my response has allayed them. I offer to make my officials available to provide a briefing on this matter to her and any other member of the Committee who should so wish, so that they can be completely reassured that the normal data protection legislation will apply to the Bill. The exchange of data may happen only for a limited and focused purpose. The hon. Lady was right to express her concerns, and I hope she will be reassured by my words and that she will not feel the need to press her amendment to a Division.
Julie Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for those explanations, and I welcome him saying it is a very limited and focused use of the data. I would be happy to take a briefing from his officials, but further to that, to give assurance to our side, I would be grateful if he will undertake to go further on Report and outline the scope of the subsection. If he will do that, we will not press the amendment to a Division.
Stephen Hammond
We will carefully consider what the hon. Lady has said and her request for further details on Report. I have listened and have offered that briefing, and I hope that is sufficient for her to decide not to press the amendment to a Division now.
Julie Cooper
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Hammond
I will try to limit my comments, given that we have already had discussions on the amendment. I am sure that will be welcome on this cold November day in a rather warm room.
Clause 4 provides a clear legal basis for processing personal data under the Bill for the purposes of UK data protection legislation. At present, the EU regulations provide a lawful basis for processing data for the purposes of reciprocal healthcare. Personal data is integral for providing healthcare abroad. It is vital that authorised persons in the UK can process data for that purpose. The clause ensures that, after exit day, there is a clear and transparent basis for processing personal data for the purposes of providing healthcare abroad, as required by UK data protection legislation. Clause 4 will ensure that safeguards are in place for that processing.
Subsection (1) limits processing to that which is necessary for the purposes of the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) ensure that any such processing must remain in compliance with UK data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and any other relevant restrictions. Finally, the persons who can process data under the Bill are limited to those authorised in subsection (6), which we have just discussed.
The safeguards limit the scope of clause 4 to what is necessary and proportionate to provide healthcare abroad. For reciprocal healthcare, personal data is required to process reimbursements to and from other countries, and where reimbursement is made to a person as well. It is also sometimes necessary for healthcare providers to share medical information to facilitate treatment. The clause ensures that the Government can continue to process personal data as necessary, after exit day, in an effective and lawful way. Personal data transferred from outside the UK will remain subject to the need for safeguards to be put in place before it is transferred. Those safeguards will not be able to be contracted out as part of any healthcare agreement with the EU or member states or third countries.
As I said a moment ago, subsection (1) provides for an authorised person to process data related to the provision of healthcare abroad. Personal data is defined in the GDPR as data that relates to a living person who can be directly or indirectly identified from the data. Specific category data is personal data containing health and genetic data. At present, there are different routes for providing healthcare abroad, such as the S1, S2 or EHIC routes, and each route requires different forms of personal data.
Subsection (2) disapplies the duty of confidence and any restriction on the processing that would otherwise apply. The exemption ensures that data can be disclosed where it is necessary for the limited purposes of the Bill. The measure is necessary and appropriate. For example, authorised persons may need to share data if a person is unconscious and therefore not in a state to provide it themselves. Importantly, as expressed in subsection (3), data processing must continue to comply with the UK data protection legislation, which ensures there are further safeguards around data processing. The GDPR also governs data transfers between the UK and other countries. All EU and EEA countries are bound by the GDPR, which means the relevant national data protection safeguards in each country are adequate, allowing the free transfer of data between countries.
Subsection (3)(a) expressly requires that the processing of data does not contravene existing data protection legislation, and subsection (3)(b) requires that the processing of data must comply with parts 1 to 7 or chapter 1 of part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The only purposes for which investigatory powers may be required are to investigate and tackle suspected cases of fraud and error relating to healthcare abroad.
As set out in subsection (1), the processing of data under the Bill is limited to authorised persons who, as we have discussed, are defined in subsection (6). The list reflects those persons and bodies currently involved in processing data, including personal data under existing reciprocal healthcare arrangements.
I mentioned that, for clarity’s sake, subsection (6)(a) lists
“the Secretary of State, the Treasury, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department”.
Healthcare abroad is entirely managed and operated by the Department of Health and Social Care in co-operation with the Executives in the devolved Administrations and their local healthcare systems. Although the Bill is about the provision of healthcare abroad, it is vital that the Executives of the devolved Administrations are considered authorised persons, since healthcare abroad is often facilitated in co-operation with them. Under subsections (6)(b), (c) and (d), healthcare bodies and providers are considered authorised persons as they are directly involved in the provision of healthcare.
Finally, subsection (6)(e) gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of authorised persons, which will ensure that the Government can respond appropriately, whatever the outcome of EU exit. It is also deemed necessary to allow the Secretary of State to respond to the changing demands of systems and operations. In future, duties may change and adding to the list will be difficult, so it is necessary to have the power in place.
Clause 4 is an important component of the Bill. It provides the Government with the necessary power to process and share data that relates to healthcare provided abroad. Therefore, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Regulations and directions
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (5) and subsection (6) and insert—
“(5) Any statutory instrument which contains regulations issued under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”
This amendment would make all regulations issued under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure and require approval from Parliament before they become law.
This amendment is probably one of the most important items that we will discuss in Committee. As I made clear when we discussed clause 2, there are widely held concerns about the scope of the regulations, which are exacerbated by the fact that these extraordinarily wide powers, necessary as they may be in the circumstances, are subject only to the negative procedure.
As I referred to earlier, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place clearly set out the potential impact of my amendment not being accepted when it said:
“If, without such amendment, the Secretary of State wished to fund wholly or entirely the cost of all mental health provision in the state of Arizona, or the cost of all hip replacements in Australia, the regulations would only be subject to the negative procedure. Of course, these examples will not be priorities for any Secretary of State in this country.”
I hope that is the case, but we are here to look at how the powers could be used over, possibly, the next 100 years, and not just how we would expect them to be used in the foreseeable future.
Nobody knows where this process will take us, and when examining legislation there is always merit in considering the unlikely as well as the stated intentions of the Government at the time. The Minister’s comments about wider objectives reaffirms the importance of our scrutinising the regulations as much as possible. We find ourselves in an unprecedented situation in Parliament, and it is therefore important that we consider all eventualities.
If Committee members need further persuasion that the amendment should be carried, that Lords Committee set out a devastating list of reasons why the negative procedure is inappropriate. It said:
“There is no limit to the amount of the payments. There is no limit to who can be funded world-wide. There is no limit to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer functions…on anyone anywhere. The regulations can delegate functions to anyone anywhere.”
The Committee concluded:
“In our view, the powers in clause 2(1) are inappropriately wide and have not been adequately justified by the Department. It is particularly unsatisfactory that exceedingly wide powers should be subject only to the negative procedure.”
The most significant reason why we do not object to the legislation is that the biggest risk at this stage is that arrangements are made that do not safeguard the ability of our constituents, when they travel abroad, or of UK citizens who currently live overseas to access healthcare, as they do now. However, because of the way the Bill is drafted, we will find that we are unable to debate whether those safeguards are in place as a matter of course. We have heard many references to the 190,000 UK expats living abroad and the 50 million or so nationals who travel to EEA countries every year. These are huge numbers of people, and the impact of the legislation on them is potentially huge. We owe it to all those people to ensure that any future arrangements are properly scrutinised.
We also need to consider the impact of any new arrangements on the NHS. As Alastair Henderson, chief executive of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, set out in evidence on Tuesday:
“Both clinicians and health organisations are concerned that we could end up with a system that is both administration-intensive and time-intensive.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 3, Q4.]
He went on:
“In practical terms, the idea that if you are a GP or a hospital doctor trying to work out whether there are different arrangements for 32 different lots of patients sounds pretty much like a nightmare set-up.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 4, Q9.]
If we do not agree to the amendment, Parliament could end up in that scenario without any voice.
While there is scope for the affirmative procedure to be used in cases where Henry VIII powers are invoked to amend primary legislation, I think it is pretty clear that potentially the most significant changes to reciprocal agreements that could be enacted under the legislation are those that are subject only to the negative procedure. As we know, the negative procedure means that an instrument is laid in draft and cannot be made if that draft is disapproved within 40 days, normally via a prayer against, which is usually by way of an early-day motion. If that does not happen, the legislation is then passed. That is a 40-day process in the best-case scenario.
If I am correct, and if we leave without a deal, the Secretary of State will have to reach agreement with each of the 30-plus countries no later than Friday 15 February, assuming that Parliament does not sit on the following Sunday. At this stage, who knows where we might end up, but we will assume for now that the sitting days are as set out, so Friday 15 February will be the last day that an instrument can be laid that will pass before 29 March, assuming that it is not prayed against. Hopefully the Minister will be able to advise whether my understanding of the timetable is correct.
Will the Minister concede that, on a practical level, it would be better for regulations moved under the Bill to be moved using the affirmative procedure? We could then get them through scrutiny in both Houses much quicker than the 40-day procedure currently allows.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues, including the issue at the heart of the clause—the appropriate, necessary and correct scrutiny arrangements for Parliament. Let me be clear at the start: the Government absolutely recognise the importance of appropriate levels of scrutiny of the Bill and its subsequent secondary legislation. It is clearly the hallmark of any effective parliamentary system that there are processes in place by which we draft, consider and test legislation. After all, that is what we are doing today.
The appropriate parliamentary procedure for the scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill that do not amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation is the negative procedure. If I am not able to reassure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and he chooses to press the amendment to a Division, I am afraid the Government will resist it.
Justin Madders
I am afraid the Minister has not managed to reassure me, despite his best efforts. When a Bill would confer power on the Executive, we have to be very careful about giving that power away. It cannot be done without good reason, even in these extraordinary times. I have not heard any justification for giving such sweeping powers to the Secretary of State without adequate scrutiny. No matter how well-intentioned the Minister is in his responses—I acknowledge his sincerity —we do not know who will be doing what in 12 months’ time. As we said earlier, we could be handing a future Secretary of State the ability to enter into arrangements for hip replacements in Australia or such like.
As the Minister said, the regulations will enable the Government to enter into detailed and complex arrangements on future healthcare. That is precisely why we need them to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I appreciate the point about the treaties possibly containing more detail, but this is about how Parliament will be able to scrutinise and challenge those arrangements.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman will have heard that the treaty arrangements will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way. We are discussing the regulations as to how we enact those treaties. I was hoping that he might be reassured by that.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that I am not reassured.
The Minister has not really addressed the practical issue about the 40-day waiting time for the negative procedure. If we enter a no-deal scenario after 29 March, as I said earlier, all the instruments under the Bill would have to be laid no later than 15 February. I am imagining the Secretary of State whisking around the 30-plus countries that we would need to enter into bilateral arrangements with throughout the whole of January, and having to get that all signed up and put on the Order Paper by 15 February. I am actually trying to help the Minister here by suggesting that if we do it by affirmative procedure, we can get these things through Parliament more quickly and with the appropriate level of scrutiny that these arrangements deserve. Therefore, I will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Hammond
Having failed to reassure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, I will have another attempt in this stand part debate. Clause 5 supplements the substantive regulation-making powers in clause 2. It provides detail on the parliamentary procedure, as we have already discussed, that will apply to regulations made under the Bill. Subsections (1) and (2) introduce standard provisions, and are consistent with regulation and direction-making powers in many other Acts of Parliament, such as the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the National Health Service Act 2006.
The clause is required to ensure that regulations and directions made under the Bill will be fit for purpose. As I have said, the powers in the Bill provide the Government with the flexibility and capability to ensure and implement detailed and complex arrangements concerning healthcare abroad. For example, the Government may use regulations to confer different functions on different bodies, in order that they may implement and operate effectively what may be provided for in an agreed reciprocal healthcare agreement. We do that now in relation to the EHIC scheme, which, as I said earlier, the NHS Business Services Authority administers on behalf of the Department. That administration includes the registering and issuing of EHICs and the processing of EHIC claims.
Future administrative arrangements to implement reciprocal healthcare agreements may reflect the current situation, or may involve conferring different functions on other bodies, as appropriate. Once the arrangements are negotiated, we will be in the best position to decide what the appropriate bodies to administer those arrangements are. We will be able to provide for the practical processes and implementation arrangements through the regulations. Clause 5 provides the Government with the flexibility to ensure that any healthcare arrangements can be implemented effectively and efficiently.
Subsection (3) provides that regulations made under clause 2
“may amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation…for the purpose of conferring functions”,
or
“to give effect to a healthcare agreement.”
I want to try again to reassure the Committee about that. The Government are conscious that Parliament rightly takes an interest in this area and, of course, we share the view about the importance of scrutiny.
This is a consequential power to make amendments to primary legislation, which is limited to three restricted uses: for the purpose of conferring functions, to give effect to a healthcare agreement and to make modifications to retained EU law. It is not a free-standing power; it is a focused power to ensure that we can implement healthcare arrangements effectively. That may involve conferring functions on healthcare bodies, which could involve amending primary legislation.
Subsection (4) provides that:
“Regulations under this Act may amend, repeal or revoke retained EU law”,
which is the body of existing EU law that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert into domestic law, together with the laws we have already made in the UK to implement our EU obligations. It is vital that the regulation-making powers extend to amending, repealing and revoking retained EU law, because the bulk of the existing provisions that relate to current reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU will be EU retained law.
Subsection (4) will ensure that domestic legislation in that area is clear and accessible. It will allow us to amend EU retained law, where appropriate, to give effect to new reciprocal healthcare arrangements. It would be an oversight if the Bill did not provide for such amendment, given that current reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU are entirely bound up in EU law.
I stress again that, of course, Parliament will be given the opportunity for the appropriate scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation. As such, subsection (6) makes it clear that regulations that contain provisions that make modifications to primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and, therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate them. That is the parliamentary scrutiny procedure befitting Henry VIII powers, and one that allows for proper scrutiny.
Regulations made under the Bill that do not contain provisions that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is our job—and I think it is only right—to ensure that legislation is afforded the appropriate level of scrutiny. Therefore, regulations that are made under the Bill that do not amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation should be subject to the negative procedure, as is normal.
The remit of our regulating powers is focused. They can be used only to give effect to healthcare agreements or to arrange, provide for or fund healthcare abroad, as is clear in the enabling powers found in clause 2(1). Where the UK negotiates a comprehensive international healthcare agreement, whether multilaterally with the EU or bilaterally with EU members, the most important element that sets out the terms of that agreement would be included in the agreement itself, as hon. Members would expect. Regulations that give effect to such an agreement would likely focus on procedural, administrative and technical details, such as the types of documents or forms that could be used to administer those reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which is a point I made earlier.
In a scenario where a comprehensive healthcare agreement is being implemented through regulations made under clause 2(1)(c), that agreement would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the ratification procedure contained in section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. That ratification procedure provides an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the substance of the healthcare agreements being given effect to in the regulations made under the Bill. It is for those reasons that I rejected amendment 2, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston moved a moment ago.
The final provision of the clause, subsection (7), sets out the definition of “primary legislation”. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, and the Committee, the Government absolutely understand and appreciate the necessity for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The level of scrutiny must reflect the substance of the piece of legislation. That is what I believe the clause does, and I therefore recommend that it stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The Minister and I will not agree on that, unfortunately. I will not repeat the arguments that we have already gone through, but I will remind hon. Members that the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee described the powers and regulation as “breath-taking”, and said that
“There is no limit to the amount of the payments. There is no limit to who can be funded world-wide. There is no limit to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer functions…on anyone anywhere.”
The scope of the clause is breath-taking. Although the Minister is trying to reassure us, as parliamentarians, we need the security of the affirmative procedure.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Would he have been a little more reassured by the Minister’s attempts at reassurance if this was not part of a process and of a pattern of behaviour by the Government? There have been power grabs and the use of Henry VIII clauses throughout the Brexit process.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his intervention. He is absolutely right. One of the things that was stated during the referendum campaign was that Parliament should take back control, and that is what I believe should be happening following the result. Parliament needs to make sure that, as much as possible, the legislation that will be necessary in the coming months is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. That is why the affirmative procedure should be included in the clause, which we cannot support as it currently stands.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Hammond
I wish to introduce this short clause, which I suspect will be somewhat less contentious than the previous one. Subsection (1) provides that the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Subsection (2) provides that the Bill will come into force on Royal Assent, which reflects the need to respond to the range of possible EU exit scenarios in a timely manner. Subsection (3) establishes that the short title of the Act will be Healthcare (International Arrangements) Act 2018. With that short explanation, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Annual report on the cost of healthcare arrangements
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out all expenditure and income arising from each healthcare arrangement made under this Act.
(2) The annual report laid under subsection 1 must include, but is not limited to—
(a) all payments made by the government of the United Kingdom in respect of healthcare arrangements for healthcare provided outside the United Kingdom to British citizens;
(b) all payments received by the government of the United Kingdom in reimbursement of healthcare provided by the United Kingdom to all non-British citizens;
(c) the number of British citizens treated under healthcare arrangements outside the United Kingdom;
(d) the number of non-British citizens treated under healthcare arrangements within the United Kingdom;
(e) any and all outstanding payments owed to or by the government of the United Kingdom in respect of healthcare arrangements made before this Act receives Royal Assent; and
(f) any and all administrative costs faced by NHS Trusts in respect of healthcare arrangements.
(3) The information required under section 2(a) and 2(b) above must be listed by individual country in every annual report.’—(Julie Cooper.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Julie Cooper
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should stress that we support the intention of the Bill. Providing that UK citizens can live, work, study and travel in EU member states with complete peace of mind with regard to the provision of healthcare is a priority for us. We are aware that, under existing arrangements, the healthcare of 190,000 UK state pensioners living abroad, principally in Ireland, Spain, France and Cyprus, and of their dependent relatives, is protected.
In addition, we seek to ensure that the health benefits currently enjoyed by UK residents who visit the EU on holiday or to study continue, so that they may use the European health insurance card to access healthcare and emergency treatment for healthcare needs that arise during their stay. We also seek to continue the arrangement under which EU nationals receive reciprocal provision when they visit the UK post Brexit.
We note, however, that the Bill is intended to provide for all reciprocal healthcare arrangements in the future, even though we still do not know—even at this late stage, two and a half years after the referendum—whether a satisfactory Brexit deal will be approved by the UK Parliament. Given the possibility of a no deal scenario, where the UK crashes out of the EU and potentially enters a period of unprecedented uncertainty, we are extremely concerned.
We understand and support the Government’s preferred policy position with regard to future reciprocal healthcare agreements, where the intention is to seek a wider agreement with the EU that covers state pensioners retiring to the EU or UK and allows for continued participation in the European health insurance card scheme, together with planned medical treatment. We want to ensure, however, that appropriate safeguards are in place with regard to costs, not least because the Bill provides the authority for the Secretary of State not only to facilitate a continuation of existing arrangements, but to enter into any number of bilateral agreements with individual member states, with no provision for parliamentary scrutiny.
We also note that the Bill provides the authority to strengthen existing reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries outside the EU, or to implement new ones with countries across the globe, in line with the Government’s aspiration to develop trading arrangements with countries beyond the EU. There is, therefore, the potential for the establishment of multiple complex agreements.
As it is not possible to know the detail of those agreements in advance, we cannot assess their likely cost implications. We therefore believe that the Government’s impact assessment is woefully inadequate in that regard. The assessment suggests that the cost of establishing a future reciprocal healthcare arrangement would be £630 million per year, which is the same as the current agreement and takes no account of inflation or future medical developments. The impact assessment’s suggestion that costs might actually be less than those we already incur is not credible.
We will be in uncharted waters, facing the prospect of the necessity to negotiate multiple agreements, some of which may be complex. As the former Secretary of State said,
“It is perfectly possible to agree the continuation of reciprocal healthcare rights as they currently exist, but it is not possible to predict the outcome of the negotiations.”
We agree that it is impossible to provide reliable estimations of likely costs in advance. We are therefore not prepared to give the Government carte blanche.
New clause 1 would provide a sensible requirement for the Government to report back to Parliament on an annual basis. Subsection 2(a) would require the Government to provide details of all payments made by the UK Government for healthcare provided outside the UK to British citizens. Subsection 2(b) would stipulate a requirement to provide details of all payments received by the UK Government in reimbursement of healthcare provided by the UK to all non-British citizens. Subsections (c) and (d) are straightforward and would require details of the numbers of citizens treated under reciprocal arrangements. Subsection 2(e) would write into law a requirement to report on all outstanding payments owed to or by the UK Government.
The Bill provides an opportunity to monitor efficiency in this area and may provide an incentive to address the concerns raised by the Public Accounts Committee in its 2017 report, “NHS treatment for overseas patients”. It stated,
“the NHS has been recovering much less than it should”,
and,
“The systems for cost recovery appear chaotic.”
That is not good enough and we would not want to see that poor level of performance replicated as a result of any new reciprocal agreements.
Currently, the Public Accounts Committee reports that there is no evidence that EU reciprocal health arrangements are being abused. However, there is an increased risk of poor performance on collection targets if there are multiple future arrangements with differential terms. Subsection 2(e) will enable ongoing parliamentary scrutiny of performance levels. While respecting that urgent medical care is provided to any patient who needs it, the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care must always ensure that money due to the NHS is recovered. We need a system that is fair to taxpayers and to patients who are entitled to free care either by virtue of being a British citizen or under a reciprocal agreement.
It is clear that, even under current arrangements, the collection of moneys owed for healthcare provided to foreign nationals, together with the administration of existing reciprocal healthcare agreements, is an onerous task for hospital trusts. As we leave the EU, it might be necessary for the UK to enter into multiple complex arrangements on a bilateral basis. Indeed, the Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State to enter into any number of agreements, which would introduce additional considerable financial burdens on hospital trusts whose duty it will be to administer the collection of charges for NHS services provided to foreign nationals who retire to the UK or who visit the UK under future reciprocal arrangements. It is likely to be a more onerous process as a series of differential arrangements might be required. The BMA and the Royal College of Paediatrics both agree that, should it be necessary to establish bilateral reciprocal arrangements with EU nations, significant additional costs would fall on the NHS.
Subsection 2(f) would introduce a requirement for the Government to report the detail of all costs incurred by hospital trusts in the pursuance of that duty. Cuts to real-terms NHS funding since 2010, together with increased demand, have pushed many NHS hospital trusts into deficit positions. The NHS is underfunded and understaffed, and hospitals face all-year-round crises. It is therefore imperative that hospital trusts are not required to shoulder additional financial burdens because of the costs of administering the collection of charges. It is absolutely essential that all agreements reached within the remit of the Bill do not direct funds for the treatment of patients to administration.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Wendy Morton.)
Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 29th November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 View all Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 November 2018 - (29 Nov 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
Mr Streeter, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon and to serve under your chairmanship. The hon. Member for Burnley has moved the motion, and in responding, I will take the opportunity to deal with the important issues of financial reporting and facilitating parliamentary scrutiny.
I will say at the outset that there can be no suggestion, nor is it the Government’s intention, that we should have anything other than a commitment to transparency and transparent use of public money. We are also committed to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny: we have taken several significant steps to ensure that central Government data is published in a transparent way, including spending control. However, that needs to be done in an efficient and effective manner, and we need to know what data is available and is not available. I have problems with the hon. Lady’s new clause because such a detailed reporting requirement is premature, and risks the very thing that she seeks to avoid. She seeks to avoid placing an administrative burden on the public bodies, but that is exactly what the new clause might do.
We believe that the frequency and detailed content of a financial report should be determined once the reciprocal healthcare arrangements have been made and the technical and operational details of those agreements are known. At the moment, the collection of administrative data is facilitated by the registration and exchange of e-forms through the processes provided for in the relevant EU regulations. As a result, the UK and other EU member states are able to collect data and report both nationally and at an EU level, based on known processes. Current spending on EEA healthcare is reported as part of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report—which the hon. Member for Burnley may wish to look at, or may well already know about—as well as the accounts that are presented to this place. The Department also provides information to the European Commission for its triennial report on cross-border healthcare, as well as providing an annual statement of financial accounts to the Commission.
The Department is currently negotiating with the EU and individual states therein with a view to providing UK citizens with continued access to healthcare in the EEA, either through an agreement or through bilaterals. In that case, we will have to agree how eligibility is evidenced; how, and how often, that information is exchanged; and, of course, the reimbursement mechanisms that will govern the new arrangements. Those agreements will have to take into account the operational possibilities and limitations of each contracting party. That should include how NHS trusts in the UK can evidence eligibility for treatment, and how that can be done in the most efficient and least burdensome manner. I therefore say to the hon. Lady that much of the data she requests is already published. There is no suggestion that the new healthcare reciprocal arrangements will change the administrative burden; in certain cases, it is a simple matter of looking at coding within systems. However, only once the technical details are known will the Government be able to formally commit to any additional reporting, if necessary.
I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Burnley that when I saw that the new clause had been tabled, I remembered that 10 years ago, I was in the place she is in now. It is the traditional role of Oppositions to table these new clauses for almost every Bill; it is also the traditional role of Governments to reject them when they see them, as I remember only too clearly from when I was sat in the hon. Lady’s place. I therefore hope I have gone some way towards making clear to her that we are not trying to avoid any reporting requirement, or to shy away from any parliamentary scrutiny. There are already a number of reporting processes in place, and we want to make sure that any future reporting processes operate in a proportionate and considered manner. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept the spirit of my remarks, and that she will therefore choose not to press the new clause to a Division.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to respond to the Minister’s points. I appreciate some of his arguments, but we are in unprecedented times. As the Bill will facilitate the arrangement of a diverse range of agreements, it must cover every eventuality. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to expect the technical agreements, once they have been reached, to be reported back to Parliament annually. Parliament cannot be expected to grant a blank cheque. I accept that I do not have the Minister’s experience in this place, but large amounts of money will be spent on as yet unknown agreements, so it seems reasonable to request that, when the negotiations result in an agreement, it is reported back to Parliament once a year. That is the first thing that concerns me.
I should have thought that the Government would want to take the opportunity to report on the improved performance and collection of charges due to the UK in respect of all non-UK citizens seeking to access care in the UK.
Stephen Hammond
Indeed, and of course we are doing so. We have made that clear. As the hon. Lady knows, over the past four years we have quadrupled the amount of income we are recovering.
Julie Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but my understanding is, as the Public Accounts Committee reported, that the Government have still not met their own targets on improved collection, and there will potentially be greater barriers to protection if several agreements are negotiated. I therefore want Parliament to have the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s delivery on collection.
I am concerned that the Minister does not think it fitting for Parliament to have sight of an impact assessment of the additional burdens that the collection resulting from the as yet unknown agreements would have on NHS hospital trusts’ general financial wellbeing. I will press this new clause to a Division. I think it is sensible and reasonable, so there can be no cause to object to it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I recall that the first Westminster Hall debate that I secured was under your chairmanship. Indeed, you were also in the Chair the first time I was the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in a Bill Committee. In these turbulent times, you are a consistent and familiar face—certainly to me and, hopefully, to many other hon. Members.
Reciprocal healthcare is of most importance for those countries where it is accessed most—none more so than on the island of Ireland. When the British Medical Association gave evidence on Tuesday, it was clear about the success story that has been achieved, particularly in the border area, particularly with a dispersed population of around 2 million. It said:
“Given the population demands on the whole island of Ireland, both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, there have been some fantastic examples of where clinicians have either co-located services in a particular trust or facility where there is not the demand from the local population to warrant it, or travelled across the border to work on different sites.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 4, Q10.]
Fiona Loud from Kidney Care UK raised the example of patients who currently cross the border daily for their care and treatments. She also mentioned organ donation and organ sharing, and the need to ensure that the existing and very successful arrangements that we have are preserved.
It is easy to talk about scaremongering when we raise the spectre of patients being turned away at the border, and I am sure that we will all do our utmost to ensure that such circumstances do not arise, but we are talking about really important issues here. The healthcare arrangements on the island date back to before the UK and the Republic of Ireland joined the EU, but they are now underpinned by EU law, so we cannot simply revert back to the old arrangements, should a full EU-wide deal not be reached.
I was concerned about the lack of consideration given to the issue in the supporting documents and in the contribution from the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), on Second Reading. If we do not get this issue right, the Bill will be a failure. The amendment would ensure that the provisions do not reach the statute book until clarity on this hugely important issue is provided. I appreciate that article 13 of the Northern Ireland protocol in the withdrawal agreement indicates a desire to continue north/south co-operation in a range of areas, including healthcare, but that does not help us if Parliament does not support the withdrawal agreement. That is why the amendment asks for a strategy to be provided as a matter of urgency.
Stephen Hammond
The new clause deals with the crucial question of healthcare on the island of Ireland. It focuses on reciprocal access to healthcare between Northern Ireland and Ireland, if there is no UK and EU deal, and would require the Secretary of State to set out plans for an agreement to protect medical access for British and Irish citizens moving between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
We agree that it is absolutely our intention to do two things. First, there should be a deal for reciprocal arrangements between the UK and the EU, and secondly, it is absolutely essential, in the unlikely scenario of no deal, that essential access continues. The UK and Ireland are committed to protecting reciprocal healthcare rights, so that UK and Irish nationals can continue to access healthcare when they live in, work in or visit the other country. We also want to maintain the co-operation between the UK and Ireland on a range of medical issues, including planned treatment, public healthcare and workforce. It is absolutely the intention of the Government that people should be able to live their lives as they do now, and that our healthcare systems support one another.
If there is no deal—in that unlikely scenario—the UK and Ireland will want to set out how we both agree to protect reciprocal healthcare arrangements, but it is also true, and the hon. Gentleman will know, that the UK Government are firmly committed to maintaining the common travel area and to protecting the rights currently enjoyed by UK and Irish nationals when in each other’s states. The hon. Gentleman’s issue about the border is mitigated by the fact that the UK Government are committed to maintaining the common travel arrangements, which allow full protection and maintenance of the status quo for all journeys for individuals between the UK and Ireland. It is currently estimated that there are something like 110 million crossings.
As I said earlier, as with other member states, we would expect to have a healthcare agreement between the two countries in the unlikely situation that there were no deal—an agreement that could be implemented into legislation that would provide the reassurances that the hon. Gentleman seeks. The NHS charging regulations can already exempt individuals that are covered by reciprocal healthcare arrangements. We can also use the powers in the Bill to maintain aspects of our current co-operation, such as reimbursement for healthcare costs and the sharing of data to support entitlements. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the new clause is necessary, given the clear commitment by both sides. I hope he recognises that commitment and does not feel that he needs to press the new clause to a vote.
Justin Madders
I am minded not to press the new clause to a vote if the Minister assures us that he will endeavour to keep us updated on the contingency plans, if it looks like we are approaching a cliff-edge scenario. That is really what we are trying to achieve.
Stephen Hammond
Let me make the hon. Gentleman the same offer that I made to the hon. Member for Burnley. In that unlikely scenario, I guarantee that I will make my officials available to give a briefing to the hon. Gentleman and any member of the Committee who wishes to understand what our proposals are.
Justin Madders
I am content with the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Strategy for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one month of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a strategy containing a defined process for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements between the government of the United Kingdom and either the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or an international organisation.
(2) The strategy under section 1 above must include information on—
(a) the body, bodies or jurisdiction that will be responsible for settling disputes;
(b) the process which will be followed by that body, bodies or jurisdiction when settling a dispute, including details of any further appeal mechanisms; and
(c) anything else the Secretary of State thinks is relevant to such a strategy.—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
On Second Reading, I spoke about the importance of dispute resolution, and asked the then Minister for Health, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), to set out how he envisaged it operating in both a deal and a no deal scenario. Despite some prompting from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), the Minister was not able to set out how dispute resolutions will be handled under the terms of any new agreement or even if the European Court of Justice will continue to represent a red line for the Government. The latter point is particularly interesting, given the new role of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire. It appears that he did not provide detail on that point because, at that stage, the Government were simply not in a position to confirm what was in the draft withdrawal agreement.
The Prime Minister categorically ruled out any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice very early in the process, but I have yet to hear any serious suggestion about how disputes can be resolved, if we manage to reach a full reciprocal healthcare agreement with the EU27 beyond the transition period, without some reference back to the ECJ. The same concerns would apply if bilateral agreements were necessary in a no deal scenario.
Given the importance that the Prime Minister and members of her Cabinet have placed on the ECJ following our exit from the European Union, it is curious to say the least that we do not have a clear statement of intent from the Government while we debate this Bill. If their position continues to be that we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws, as the Prime Minister put it in January 2017, it is vital that we have clarity about the arrangement that will be used in place of the ECJ. If a new arrangement is established, what will the cost be? Who will the judges be? Where will it be based? Will it be an open process?
If, on the other hand, we look to the ECJ for dispute resolution after all, even if only in the limited area of reciprocal healthcare, would that not represent a significant political U-turn? This issue is fundamental to the Government’s approach to Brexit. For example, they decided that we could not continue to host the European Medicines Agency, causing it to go to Amsterdam at the cost of 900 jobs in this country, and potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. The Health Secretary’s sole justification for that was that the Government were not prepared to accept the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction. Our purpose in tabling this new clause is to get clarity from the Minister about whether the European Court of Justice remains a red line for the Government.
Stephen Hammond
The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a detailed strategy defining the process for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements after we leave the European Union. No one in the room would dispute the spirit behind the new clause. As I have stated throughout our examination of the Bill, it is right that there should be transparency regarding the UK’s future relationship with the EU and other countries after exit. It is right that that transparency should apply to the arrangement of future healthcare agreements, and the processes that underpin them, such as dispute resolution, but, although I agree with the spirit of the new clause, I am not entirely sure that it would achieve its intended aim. I will give a number of reasons why.
The new clause would confer a duty on the Secretary of State to lay a strategy on the process for dispute resolution before Parliament. Both in a deal and a no deal scenario, such a strategy would be unlikely to provide information on the process for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements that is not already available in the public domain. That is not due to a lack of endeavour; it is an issue of timing and consideration of what is already publicly available. In the expected scenario that the UK agrees a deal with the EU, the proposed process for settling disputes has already been confirmed in the White Paper on the future relationship, the draft withdrawal Bill that governs the implementation period and, most recently, the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and EU. The processes have already been confirmed. They are outlined in those documents and would apply not only to disputes, but clearly therefore to disputes in any reciprocal healthcare agreement.
The hon. Gentleman asks what the dispute mechanism is. I am sure that the Committee will be pleased that I am not going to quote extensively from the withdrawal agreement, but it is worth putting on the record that the mechanism for resolving disputes will be through consultation at the Joint Committee, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreeable resolution. If the parties are not able to resolve the dispute in the Joint Committee, either party can request the establishment of an independent arbitration panel to resolve it. The panel will be made up of five members, with one person being the chairperson. The UK and the EU will nominate two members to sit on the panel and then mutually agree the fifth member, who will be the chairperson. The panel members will act independently and do not represent the party that nominated them. It is binding that the panel members be independent and impartial and they must possess specialised knowledge or experience of EU law and international law.
The hon. Gentleman challenges me on the role of the ECJ. He is right that the ECJ has a role here, but its role is very clear and very limited. The role of the ECJ after the implementation period will be restricted to ensuring the correct interpretation of EU law. There is no suggestion that the ECJ will determine the dispute, or that we would ever agree to the ECJ determining the dispute.
That is the likely scenario and the processes that are already formally set out via the documents that I described earlier. In the unlikely scenario that the UK leaves the European Union without a deal, the United Kingdom will arrange reciprocal healthcare agreements, and in those agreements, there will have to be bilateral dispute resolution. That would clearly have to be determined on a case-by-case basis as part of the negotiations to put those bilateral healthcare agreements in place, and, therefore, there is unlikely to be a single dispute resolution process, which is what the new clause suggests, so while I accept the spirit of it, the wording would restrict the ability for future reciprocal healthcare arrangements.
More importantly, the requirement for such a strategy to be laid before the House one month after the Bill receives Royal Assent does not align with the aim of the Bill to provide future reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries both inside and outside the EU. Clearly, those agreements are likely to be negotiated over a period of time and, as I have just mentioned, the dispute resolution mechanisms within them are likely to be different and may vary. It would therefore be arbitrary and unhelpful to produce a general strategy immediately after Royal Assent.
I understand the intention behind the new clause, but it would place an unnecessary burden and duty on the Secretary of State. In a deal scenario, the procedures are already there. In the unlikely no deal scenario, it would be likely to frustrate the ability to put in place future reciprocal healthcare agreements.
I hope that, having heard that, the hon. Gentleman will accept that, although we understand the spirit of his new clause, its wording would be likely to frustrate the purpose of the Bill. I therefore ask him not to press it to a vote.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out in more detail than we were able to elicit on Second Reading. Given that the withdrawal agreement had not been published at the time, I understand why the then Minister was not able to do that. The present Minister has been very helpful in setting out the process for leaving with a deal. He is right that, if we leave without a deal, we are in uncharted territory. I do not think I heard any confirmation that there are red lines, in terms of the European Court of Justice, in that scenario. That is really what the new clause was meant to establish. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Duty to consult with devolved administrations
Before issuing any regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government and have regard for their views on the regulations.—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I hope this is a straightforward and uncontroversial new clause. We have already spoken about the importance of reciprocal healthcare arrangement to citizens in Northern Ireland, and of course there will also be an impact on patients in Wales and Scotland. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have clearly and robustly articulated their support for a continuation of reciprocal healthcare agreements, and why would they not?
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was clear in its recommendation that there should be active participation of the devolved Administrations in setting out the UK’s position in future arrangements, but I am not aware that there have been any discussions. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what conversations have taken place, because we did not get clarity on that on Second Reading.
The new clause repeats some of the issues that we raised this morning, which you did not have the pleasure of hearing, Mr Streeter. It is about the scope and power of the Bill and the wide range of duties given to the Secretary of State, which will be subject to the negative procedure. We think it is important that, as part of the Bill, when those wide powers are given to the Secretary of State, there must be a clear duty to consult with the devolved Administrations before those regulations are enacted.
The Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill have dealt extensively with the need to involve the devolved Administrations. I think this is the bare minimum that we need. It would represent a consistent and equitable approach across the devolved nations, in terms of our future relationship with the EU.
Stephen Hammond
It is a pleasure to respond to this new clause, which addresses the extraordinarily important issue of engaging and working with the devolved Administrations. We completely agree that regulations made under the Bill may relate to devolved matters, by which I mean domestic healthcare. The Government will engage and meaningfully consult with the devolved Administrations in line with our existing arrangements, as found in the 2012 memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and the principles that underlie relations between us. That reinforces the positive work that the UK Government continue to do with the devolved Administrations daily for the benefit of the whole of the UK on this matter.
I am forced to reflect that, though the hon. Gentleman’s new clause is not necessary, the sentiment behind it is shared by everyone in Committee, I suspect. The regulation-making powers in the Bill provide us with a legal mechanism to implement international agreements domestically. The Bill will ensure that we can broadly continue reciprocal healthcare arrangements, where agreed with the EU, to the benefit of the residents of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The powers offer flexibility and can be used to implement comprehensive healthcare agreements with third countries in the future for the benefit of all UK nationals.
Justin Madders
The Minister has put on record pretty clearly his intention in respect of ongoing and continued engagement with the devolved institutions. He is right that we are concerned that the powers under the Bill are wide. Those concerns remain, but in so far as they involve the new clause, his comments have done enough to assure us that it will not be necessary for us to press it to a vote.
I echo the Minister’s sentiments, given that we are now making the closing remarks of this Bill Committee. I thank you for chairing, Mr Streeter, and hon. Members for participating in Committee today.
I look forward to Report. We need to continue to explore some important issues, but we must move forward with this legislation, as is necessary in this uncertain time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Third sitting)
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 31, in schedule 2, page 171, line 18, at end insert—
‘(4) The provisions in this paragraph may not come into effect until the Treasury has published the results of any consultation conducted by the Commissioners with representative bodies concerning awareness of the provisions among those who will be covered by them.’
This amendment would delay the commencement of the paragraph in Schedule 2 relating to the obligation to make a return in respect of a disposal to which the Schedule applies, until the Treasury has released details of HMRC‘s consultation with representative bodies concerning awareness of the provisions amongst those who may be covered by them.
Amendment 32, in schedule 2, page 176, line 21, at end insert—
‘Part 1A
Review of effects on public finances
17A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects if the provisions in Schedule 2 were introduced from 6 April 2019, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the provisions of Schedule 2 if they were introduced in 2019/20.
Amendment 33, in schedule 2, page 176, line 21, at end insert—
‘Part 1A
Review of effects on public finances
17A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to capital gains tax returns and payments on account in this in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 2.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I wonder whether it should be the Opposition speaking to their amendments, as opposed to me proceeding, though I am happy to do so.
The Chair
The lead question is clause stand part. I assumed that the Minister would want to speak. If he prefers to wait, that is fine; the debate is open to those who want to speak to amendments.
Mel Stride
I am happy to proceed as you suggest, Mr Howarth, and to respond briefly to the Opposition speeches later.
The clause and schedule 2 introduce a requirement on UK residents to pay capital gains tax through payments on account when disposing of residential property. They also amend a similar requirement for non-residents. Parts 1 and 2 of the schedule bring all the main rules together in one place.
For income tax, employees are taxed throughout the tax year as part of the pay-as-you-earn system. Self-employed people pay their income tax liabilities in instalments known as payments on account throughout the tax year, making a balancing payment following the end of the tax year through the self-assessment system.
In contrast, capital gains tax, which also forms part of the self-assessment system, has traditionally been available only after the tax year has ended. That means that the taxpayer may pay their capital gains tax liability up to 22 months after making the gain. As gains on residential property can be significant, we think it right that any capital gains tax due is paid soon after the property is disposed of, to ensure that any liability is paid when the taxpayer is most likely to have the funds to do so.
The changes made under schedule 2 introduce new requirements on UK residents when they dispose of UK residential property on which capital gains tax is due, such as a second home or a buy-to-let property. The first requirement is that they must make a payment on account of their capital gains tax liabilities. In most cases, that will be payable within 30 days of the contract for the sale or disposal being completed.
The second requirement ensures that the payment is properly accounted for by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Taxpayers must submit a simple tax return within the same 30-day window advising HMRC of the disposal and how much they are paying on account. How much tax is paid will be calculated according to the gain made and any unused losses and allowances that the taxpayer may offset at that time. It will work in much the same way as completing a self-assessment return. If at the end of the tax year a person has no further income tax or capital gains tax liabilities due, they will not then need to complete a full self-assessment return.
We have listened to representations made during consultation and therefore made changes to the legislation. Reasonable estimates of valuations and apportionments will be permitted without penalty when the correct amounts are unavailable in time. The changes will come into effect for disposals from 6 April 2020.
The schedule also makes two changes to an existing reporting and payment-on-account scheme that applies to non-UK residents disposing of UK property. First, it amends the scope of the scheme from 6 April 2019 to include the new interests chargeable to tax that we debated under clause 13.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I declare an interest: I have paid capital gains tax—a horrible tax—in the past. At the moment, there is an allowance for capital gains tax, so when the form goes in, the allowance is taken off. Will the full allowance be taken off the first-stage payment, or will the allowance taken off the payment be split? Let us say that I have a £30,000 capital gain; I might well take up all my allowance in the first-stage payment and pay a slightly larger second payment, or I could simply split the whole amount. There is also a cash-flow issue.
Mel Stride
My understanding is that the capital allowance will be applicable when the first payment is made in full, subject to the capital gain being equal to or exceeding the allowance. If there is any adjustment on a subsequent return, I imagine—I look to my colleagues—that if the gain has been less than the capital allowance initially, or in other words there is some excess available, that might be available to any balancing payment made subsequently. The officials seem to confirm that to be the case.
Sir Robert Syms
The capital gain might be split between two people. This is a slightly separate, tangential question, but let us say a husband and wife sell something and the capital gain is split between them. I presume that will be two allowances and two split payments. Is there a minimum amount for someone to have to fill in a form to put in? For a small capital gain—a few hundred pounds—is there a de minimis amount or will more bureaucracy be created for rather minor payments?
Mel Stride
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is about to sell a house and is simply after some discounted tax advice. He is right that there will be an allowance for each taxpayer under those circumstances. The sale of the property—let us say it is a property—will occur and, to the extent that there are capital gains at or below the allowance for each of the two parties, that may be offset at that particular point.
The context of the clause is not so much the way the relief of the capital allowance works—it remains as before—but the timing of the payment of the capital gains tax should there be any. It moves from what might be a 22-month delay, given the capital gain might have been assumed at the beginning of a particular tax year but payment will not be required until completion of the self-assessment in the January following, so this is about timing rather than the mechanics of how the capital gains allowance works.
Sir Robert Syms
I understand that, but quite often when people sell a property, they have an amount of money they have to pay, and they put it in a bank account and sit on the money for a few months in order to sort out their tax return. Currently, they do not get much interest on the money anyway, but I wonder whether, rather than have a split payment, someone will be given a small discount for paying the whole sum in the year rather than splitting it until they do their tax return. It seems to me that people will be happy to pay, but that if there is a little incentive they might pay the whole amount.
Mel Stride
The provisions of the clause change the regime such that they will be required to account for the capital gains within 30 days. In a sense, this has been done by changing the rules rather than providing an incentive, I am afraid. I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting interventions.
Amendment 31 proposes that the changes come into effect only once we can guarantee awareness of them. HMRC has engaged with stakeholders on the details of the change and the draft legislation. The Members who tabled the amendment will be pleased to know that the Government published a summary of responses to their consultation on 6 July.
Amendments 32 and 33 request a review of the revenue impact of the changes, including the impact on the tax gap. The latest estimates for the revenue impact of the measure, both with the original 2019 start date and the delay to April 2020, were published at the Budget 2018.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The transition from diesel and petrol to electric cars is vital for us to meet our carbon budgets. Has the Treasury assessed the impact of the measure on the electric vehicle market, as well as the wider automotive sector?
Mel Stride
I assure the hon. Gentleman that in these tax matters—as with all tax matters—given our firm commitment to honour our climate change commitments, we are in regular contact with car manufacturers and those producing electric vehicles, through my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary.
As with all policy changes, the fiscal impact of the measure will be monitored by HMRC, and the Office for Budget Responsibility may request for it to be reviewed as the new out-turned data becomes available. The fiscal impact on taxpayer compliance has been considered and is included in the overall costing of the measure. HMRC publishes annual updates to its tax gap analysis, which will reflect the effect of capital gains tax policy changes. I therefore urge the Committee to resist the amendments and I commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory comments and for his comments on our amendments.
As the Minister explained, the clause and schedule extend, from 6 April next year, the existing capital gains tax requirements in relation to reporting and payment for non-UK residents who are disposing of UK property, in order to include new interest that will henceforth be taxed. They also introduce, on the same date the following year, reporting and payment-on-account obligations for residential property gains for UK residents and UK branches and agencies of non-UK resident people.
The measure has been quite a long time coming. Back in 2015, the Government signalled their intention to introduce from April 2019 the requirement that capital gains tax on gains from selling or disposing of residential property be paid within 30 days of the disposal being completed. As the Minister intimated, that will be a payment on account towards the person’s tax liability for the tax year in which the disposal is made. However, the measure was deferred until 2020, and the consultation on it undertaken earlier this year, as the Minister mentioned. As I understand it, there is already a payment-on-account scheme for non-UK residents, so these measures will just extend that approach to UK residents, as well as expanding the range of taxable interest for non-UK residents.
We have tabled two amendments. Amendment 31 would delay commencement of the provisions in paragraph 3 of schedule 2 until the Government have released further details of HMRC’s consultation with representative bodies concerning awareness of those provisions among those who may be covered by them. The rationale for the amendment is that the proposed measures, as we have just discussed, introduce a new payment-on-account scheme for capital gains tax on residential property that requires filing of a return far earlier than is currently required, and far earlier than the potential 22 months to which the Minister referred, right down to 30 days after the disposal of that property.
During the consultation on the proposals, some respondents expressed their concern that taxpayers, not expecting that they needed to make such a return until the end of the tax year, might fail to inform their accountant and thus miss the deadline. Of course, in doing so they would incur interest on non-payment. Our amendments would enable details of HMRC’s discussions with representative bodies to be asked for in order to ensure that potentially affected taxpayers were forewarned of the new measures and therefore did not fall foul of them and incur that interest on non-payment.
I understand why respondents to the consultation might have been concerned by that. Their responses were summarised in the consultation response document as concerning the fact that
“taxpayers may not be aware of the new rules until after the end of the tax year when they tell their accountants about their disposals, resulting in late filing penalties.”
Some of those making that argument pointed out that HMRC charges interest for those filing late, set at 3%. That, of course, contrasts with the repayment interest of 0.5%. I completely understand why there is a difference in rates, but that difference surely adds some grist to the mill of needing to ensure that all potential taxpayers are definitely made aware of the change. After all, 30 days is not that long a period within which to act.
The Government’s response to the consultation maintains that where information needed to be obtained from third parties for the purposes of calculating the capital gains tax that should be accommodated within the periods required for marketing and conveying any such property, and that estimated declarations could be corrected later, as the Minister mentioned. I am a little concerned by some of the ambiguity in the language used in the consultation response about what will happen if a taxpayer cannot make the payment on time. This is a question not of the amount of tax owed, but of the calibration of when it will be paid.
Sir Robert Syms
Another slight problem is that when someone is selling a property, it is not unusual for them to renovate it or do some work on it. When they report their CGT liability, they offset their legal fees, builders’ fees and other fees. The 30-day reporting window is quite tight. With my solicitor, I tend to get a bill long after I have forgotten that I owe it.
I am sure the Minister will pick up on this question when he sums up, but is the 30-day period just for reporting the possibility of CGT, or is it for reporting the actual figures? It is quite a tight period to collect all the bills, work out the profit or offset the allowance and pay the right amount, given how people do business in this country.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for that intervention, which underlines the fact that in practice some of the calculations may be relatively complex. The response to the consultation sets out the Government’s view that in practical terms it should normally be possible for those involved to come up with the appropriate figure, but if not, an estimate would be acceptable.
While the hon. Gentleman was making his very relevant point, I was wondering whether there might be room for people to proffer a low estimate, which would obviously have a financial benefit, and then correct it later on. Will HMRC genuinely have the capacity to understand whether such an estimate was bona fide—as he says, evidence such as relevant bills may not have been fully available at the time—or whether it was intended to reduce liability? I agree that a specific reply from the Minister to that pertinent point would be helpful.
Clearly, in this case the length of time for any deferral of capital gains tax beyond the 30-day period, up to 22 months, would presumably need to be quite a bit shorter than the length of time we are talking about in relation to time-to-pay agreements. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that and whether his Department will be setting out criteria similar to those I have just mentioned for time-to-pay agreements to guide HMRC on this matter. Were these matters covered in the existing consultation that occurred with interested parties and just not reported in the Government’s response?
Amendment 32 would require a review of the effects on public finances if the provisions in this schedule were introduced from 6 April 2019. It would require the Secretary of State to
“lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act”.
We believe that the amendment is necessary—first, because from what I can see there are two effective start dates in the schedule and it is quite unclear why; and secondly, because we need to understand the anticipated impact of the measures to a greater degree than is surely possible with the information supplied to us.
We have already had a little discussion about the payment on account system. Arguably, it enables the smoothing of outgoings for individuals and individual businesses, and of revenue for HMRC, so to that extent it can help with financial planning. However, we are surely talking about quite a different process when it comes to the payment of capital gains tax. We are not talking about someone who is self-employed, who is very unlikely to have payment just in one big lump sum; it is likely to be in a number of different sums or continuous payments.
One could argue there is more of a rationale for payment on account in those regards than potentially here, aside from the fact that these measures will ensure more security of revenue for HMRC. Surely they could potentially have a revenue impact because, as the hon. Member for Poole mentioned before, without this 30-day limit individuals could be keeping that sum, effectively earning interest on it and paying it later.
I appreciate what was said about the interest rate being low now, but that will not always necessarily be the case. Surely it would be useful for us to have a review on the effects on public finances of these provisions, as requested in amendment 32. Amendment 33 from the Scottish National party pushes in the same direction, so we also support that.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East; we are also happy to support the Labour party’s very sensible amendments.
Our amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances and on reducing the tax gap of the changes made to capital gains tax in schedule 2. In 2016-17 the income tax, national insurance contributions and capital gains tax gap was 4.2%, or £13.5 billion—quite a significant amount of money for a Government to be short-changed on. It seems only sensible, then, that the Chancellor informs us of how he expects these changes to impact that tax gap. That would enable us to have a record of what the intentions are and what he expects to be the conclusion.
Only then can we coherently and clearly assess whether the measure is working or not. Especially given how unpredictable the current future is with Brexit and things, it surely only makes sense to put this stuff down in writing—“Here’s what we think is going to happen”—so that we can then assess it. Ultimately, it cannot hurt to be more transparent, so I urge the Government to accept the amendment.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for their contributions; I will just pick up on the points that have been raised.
On the question of timing, both in terms of bringing the measure before the Committee and the fact that it is coming in in 2020, I should say that we clearly consulted very carefully. The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned consultation: we had an eight-week technical consultation, held between 11 April and 6 June 2018, and there were a number of responses to that.
On the issue of the date when the change will come in, it is important to mention that this is a significant change to the way the timing arrangements of this tax operate. The hon. Member for Oxford East drew on my observation that it is possible under the existing regime to have a 22-month delay between the sale of the asset concerned and payment of the tax. Of course, that is the maximum delay, which would occur in the event that the asset was disposed of at the very beginning of a tax year. In reality, the delay is likely to be shorter than that—as much as 12 months shorter if the asset is sold at the end of the tax year in question.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I want to raise an issue about capital gains tax that was brought up by one of my constituents, who has taken the opportunity in retirement to travel overseas for a few years. They let their property using letting relief. I understand a consultation has been started to review letting relief. They are concerned that the loss of letting relief may make them liable for capital gains tax, which may mean they have to sell their family home despite the fact that they want to return to the UK. I will write to the Minister about that case, and I wonder whether he will look into it and write back to me.
Mel Stride
If my hon. Friend writes to me about that consultation, I will of course be very happy to respond to her.
The hon. Member for Oxford East also raised the possibility of someone not filing the information as a consequence of the shortening of the time period. Part of the purpose of the change is to concentrate the requirement to file the paperwork at the time the asset is sold, rather than leaving it in the distance. Where that requirement gets pushed into the distance, there is a possibility of people forgetting about it.
One should also bear in mind that, in the case of a property, a number of professional advisers—particularly solicitors—will be involved in the transaction. One would expect them, in the natural course of events, to discuss the tax implications of the transaction with the individual concerned.
Sir Robert Syms
If someone has a number of properties, it is important that HMRC knows which they elect as their main home. If, as in the case my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned, that has not always been their main home—if it started off as a second home or they rented it out, for example—the normal approach is to apportion certain years in the property for which they are liable for capital gains tax. I am still a little concerned about the 30 days. I have on occasions gone back through all my files to see when I told HMRC or my accountant, and it is possible to get into a long, involved thing about what percentage of a property is liable for capital gains tax.
I am just a bit concerned that the window of opportunity is too small. There are examples of people having multiple capital gains tax liabilities because they bought themselves more than one home in a year. Getting all the information and the bills together sometimes takes a little time—it can be easier to do that during the year-end process. I can understand the Treasury’s wanting to get income in quickly, and many people would welcome that, but 30 days is pretty short if someone has to go through their strong boxes at home or contact their accountant or solicitor, who are often repositories of information. I hope the Minister thinks about this issue a little more.
The Chair
Order. I do not want to discourage interventions, because they are a useful way of eliciting information, but some of the interventions we have heard might have been better conducted as proper speeches. People should consider whether they might be better making a fuller case in a speech rather than an intervention. I say that not to discourage interventions but, I hope, to provide a bit of helpful guidance.
Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Howarth; I am sure the Committee has taken note of your guidance. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole that there is another aspect to that, and while 30 days is 30 days—not a year or more as has been the case under current arrangements—there are two points that I will make.
One is that, clearly, there is typically a moment of exchange before property transfer completes, which is an additional period of time in which paperwork is brought together. The second point is that, to the extent that it is not possible to immediately complete the information with absolute certainty within the 30 days—perhaps because of third-party valuation issues, for example—it is possible, as I said earlier, to have a balancing arrangement further on down the line in the future. That could work either way: the Revenue might owe the individual money or vice versa. That is facilitated within the arrangements.
I point my hon. Friend to the HMRC website where, should he have any more specific questions about how CGT operates, there is a user-friendly interface. He can put in all the numbers and variables, and the website will provide him with the answers.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the time-to-pay arrangements. Clearly, where tax is due, the Revenue takes a measured and responsible approach towards those who find it difficult to pay any tax, perhaps for reasons of personal financial difficulty or otherwise. I know from conversations that those at a senior level at HMRC have always been very keen to ensure that it operates in a sympathetic and responsible manner to negotiate the very difficult line between being sympathetic, responsible and helpful, where appropriate, and equally, making sure that we are all treated the same and that, where tax is due, individuals and companies actually pay it.
Another point that has been raised is HMRC capacity. The premise of those concerns is the assumption that, to a significant degree, the changes might generate lots of additional work for HMRC. I suspect the contrary, for the reasons that I have given. If, when the capital gain is crystallised, there is a shorter period for people to hand in the paperwork as required, it means that they will get on and do it, rather than delaying and discovering that, as a consequence, they have to contact HMRC to get involved in negotiations and discussions.
On the overarching point about HMRC and capacity, as the hon. Lady will know, we have of course invested an additional £2 billion in HMRC since 2010. We have 24,000 individuals or full-time equivalents in HMRC who are focused on tax collection. The total head count of HMRC, which stands at around 70,000, is the highest that it has been for some years. I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. We on this side do not oppose the measures and are willing not to press our two amendments to a Division. I will, however, make two points. It would help if the Minister provided some information on the criteria that would be used by HMRC for adopting deferred arrangements with individual taxpayers. Such criteria exist for time-to-pay arrangements, but none has been set out in relation to this clause, so it would be helpful to know what they are. I agree with him that there needs to be a balance between sympathy and responsiveness, to enable people to pay the tax that is due. On the other hand, there is the matter of equal treatment.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend has been doing remarkable work on making connections with the representative bodies, and visiting offices all around the country. My constituency has about 2,700 members of HMRC staff. There seems to be incongruity between what the Minister says about capacity and resource in HMRC and my experience from speaking to my constituents. Does my hon. Friend feel the same in that regard?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I do agree. Certainly judging by the conversations that I have had in a number of different parts of the country where the consolidation programme for HMRC is occurring, there is enormous concern, particularly about the expertise that is being lost by HMRC in some very important areas.
I would hazard the argument, relating this to the previous point, that when one is talking about, for example, tax officials having appropriate discretion to offer slightly different payment plans and so on to individuals, one needs to have experienced staff who can make those kinds of decisions, but we are seeing many such staff leaving. HMRC currently has the lowest morale, I think, among its staff of any Department. That reflects concern about the regionalisation programme, but also about other matters.
As I mentioned, it would help if we were provided with the set of criteria for deciding to apply a slightly different approach and allow latitude beyond the 30 days. It would also help if we were given, perhaps in written form, more information in order to reassure us that, because the window is still open for a balancing payment to be made later, the issue that we were talking about before does not arise.
Obviously, the vast majority of taxpayers will wish to make a truthful and accurate return, but if that process is manipulated, it could default in effect to what we have already, so it would be useful to hear about some of the anti-avoidance aspects of this measure. However, as I said, we are certainly willing to withdraw the Labour amendments.
Mhairi Black
I appreciate everything that the Minister said. However, I think that our amendment is as sensible as it is transparent and therefore I still insist that it be part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
May I say to the hon. Member for Oxford East that I will, of course, be very happy to write to her on the criteria in relation to time-to-pay arrangements?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Returns for disposals of UK land etc
Amendment proposed: 33, in schedule 2, page 176, line 21, at end insert—
“Part 1A
Review of effects on public finances
17A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to capital gains tax returns and payments on account in this in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”—(Mhairi Black.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 2.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 39, in schedule 5, page 204, line 29, at end insert—
“Part 1A
Annual report of non-uk resident companies
5A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish details of non-UK resident companies to which corporation tax is chargeable due to the provisions of this Schedule.
(2) The details published under sub-paragraph (1) must list the name of each such non-UK resident company.
(3) The publication under sub-paragraph (1) must be published—
(a) in respect of the first such publication, within six months of this Schedule coming into force, and
(b) in respect of each subsequent publication, within 12 months of the date of the previous publication.”
This amendment requires an annual report on companies to which corporation tax is chargeable due to the provisions of this Schedule.
Amendment 35, in schedule 5, page 210, line 45, at end insert—
“Part 2A
Review of effects on public finances
34A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review under sub-paragraph (1) must consider—
(a) the expected change in corporation tax paid attributable to the provisions in this Schedule, and
(b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions in this Schedule, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid.”
This amendment requires a review of the effects of this Schedule on the public finances.
Amendment 38, in schedule 5, page 210, line 45, at end insert—
“Part 2A
Annual review of effects of this schedule
34A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake an annual review of the effects of the provisions of this Schedule on corporation tax receipts.
(2) The report of the review under sub-paragraph (1) must be laid before the House of Commons before—
(a) in respect of the first review, within 12 months of this Schedule coming into force, and
(b) in respect of each subsequent review, within 12 months of the date on which the report of the previous review was laid before the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires an annual review of the revenue effects of this Schedule, in each year following the Schedule coming into force.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Comparative review of the expected effects of Schedule 5
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must a review of the expected effects of the provisions of Schedule 5 on payments to the Commissioners, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within 6 months of the passing of the Act.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must in particular consider—
(a) the expected change in corporation tax receipts attributable to those provisions, and
(b) the expected change in corporation tax receipts if—
(i) the provisions in Schedule 5 were not brought into force, and
(ii) the rate of corporation tax were to be changed to 26%.”
This requires a review of the effects of Schedule 5, and a comparison of the effects of that Schedule to an increase of the rate of corporation tax to 26%.
Mel Stride
Clause 17 and schedule 5 provide that a non-UK resident company that carries on a UK property business will be charged corporation tax, rather than income tax as at present. The provisions will deliver equal tax treatment for UK and non-UK resident companies that carry on UK property businesses. They will prevent persons from using the existing difference in treatment to reduce their tax bill on UK rental property or land through offshore ownership.
Until 1965 all companies were subject to income tax on their profits. When corporation tax was introduced in that year for UK resident companies and for non-resident companies trading in the UK through a UK permanent establishment, other non-resident companies remained chargeable under the income tax rules. From July 2016, non-resident companies that deal in or develop UK land were brought within the UK tax net under corporation tax, but for UK property businesses, two companies, one domestic and one offshore, currently have different rules for calculating tax from a UK property income, even if their property businesses are otherwise identical.
The clause provides for a more coherent and fair tax regime by bringing the UK property business income of non-resident companies into the corporation tax regime from 6 April 2020. The transition will mean that those companies will be subject to the recently implemented policies to combat tax avoidance, including the corporate interest restriction, hybrid mismatch rules, carried-forward income loss restriction and the carried-forward capital loss restriction announced at Budget 2018. The businesses will now be taxed at the corporation tax rate and, in combination with clause 24, they will be eligible for the loss relief rules available to companies and groups. The latest estimate by the Office for Budget Responsibility is that the changes will raise £365 million over the next five years.
Amendment 39 would require the publication of a register of named individual non-UK resident companies who are charged corporation tax rather than income tax as a result of the measure. The Government do not identify specific individuals or companies that are brought within the scope of particular tax charges, and it would be inappropriate to do so. Amendments 35 and 38 would require a review of the impact of schedule 5 on corporation tax receipts. The OBR certified impact of the measure on tax receipts is set out in table 2.2 of Budget 2018. It will be updated in table 2.2 of Budget 2019 before the schedule comes into effect on 6 April 2020, so the amendments are unnecessary.
New clause 4 would require the Government to undertake a review of the effects of schedule 5, specifically to consider the effect of not bringing schedule 5 into effect and increasing the corporation tax rate to 26%. If schedule 5 was not brought into effect, non-UK resident companies with income from UK property would remain chargeable to income tax. In that situation, raising the corporation tax to 26% would create a clearly enhanced incentive for companies with a UK property business to set up offshore in order to benefit from paying the basic rate of income tax.
I urge the Committee to reject the new clause, along with the amendments, and I commend clause 17 and schedule 5 to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation of the clause and schedule. As he explained, they set out new arrangements for non-UK resident companies that carry on a UK property business or that have other UK property income. The clause and schedule will shift those companies from the income tax regime into the corporation tax regime. The Government appear to intend the measure to deliver more equal treatment for UK and non-UK resident companies in receipt of similar income, and to prevent those that use the difference to reduce their tax bill on UK property through offshore ownership.
The measures were subject to consultation from March last year and the Government released their response in autumn 2017. In that Budget the Government announced they would make the change in two years’ time, in 2020. I anticipate that in our discussion we will return to some of the themes that characterised our discussion on clauses 13 and 14. The measure seeks to align the treatment of non-UK investors with that of UK investors in the field of real estate. On Tuesday we discussed some of the limitations that the Opposition believes there are with the Government’s approach.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate with you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. It is good to take part in this interesting debate on the changes that the Government propose.
We are happy to support Labour amendments 39 and 38. If it is pushed to a vote when the time comes, we shall support new clause 4, but I make it clear that it is not our position that corporation tax should be changed in the way the Labour party suggests. However, the new clause asks for a review of the effect of the potential change and we think it is reasonable that Opposition policies, as well as the Government’s, should be scrutinised. It is, I think, fairly reasonable for us to support the review on that basis.
Our amendment 35, as the hon. Member for Oxford East said, is similar to one of the Labour amendments. Its aim is to have a review of the effect on public finances of the expected change, including in relation to the tax gap. I do not want to contradict the hon. Lady, but the Government have put out two sets of contradictory figures on the revenue implications for the Exchequer. The Government’s 29 October policy document links to the original numbers she cited. It gives a link to more information and then provides figures contradictory to those in the policy document.
The policy document does not have the £690 million figure; it predicts an increase of £700 million in 2020-21, a reduction of £300 million in 2021-22, a reduction of £15 million in 2022-23 and, crucially, a reduction of £20 million in 2023-24. The previous set of figures said that the impact would be negligible in the fourth year. Now the Government are suggesting that there will be a decrease in the amount of money coming into the Exchequer as a result of the change. Presumably, we may imagine that the reduction will continue in future years, whereas the Government previously argued that their previous figures were correct, when they predicted not much of an increase or decrease either way in future years.
I was slightly confused by the information that the Government provided, and it would be useful to have clarity about which figures are correct, and why the policy document contains one set of figures but links to a different set on the website. Possibly a change needs to be made there, as the link to more information takes people somewhere that does not give more information—it contradicts the original information provided. I found it quite difficult to wade through that. Given what I have outlined, it is even more important that our amendment should be accepted. We need clear information from the Government, and a clear idea of what revenue effects are, or are not, expected.
Another thing that was mentioned in an earlier consultation document is the expectation that it will cost HMRC £160,000 to make the changes necessary to put the new system in place. That also needs to be teased out in the information provided. The amendment would reduce the effect on public finances, and that would include any additional spend required by HMRC staff as a result of the suggested changes.
I am concerned that there is a lack of transparency about the conflict between the two sets of figures provided, and that the Government have not been particularly clear about their intentions behind the change. I understand that they feel that making the change would put everyone on a more level playing field, but surely they should do that only if they expect a change to have a positive impact. There is no point in moving people from being liable for one tax to being liable for another tax to reduce the impact on the Exchequer, if that is the only predicted change.
Perhaps the Government want the extra money in year one, because they feel that Brexit will be such a disaster that we could do with extra money in year one, and they are willing to take the hit in future years. Given the potential impact on future years, the change will not be revenue-neutral in future. If the Government think that it will be, it would be useful to know that.
Having said all that, I am not clear about the Government’s intentions behind the change; it would be good if they could explain the rationale behind what they are doing. I have looked at the explanatory notes and they do not make it much clearer. The Government may think that this system is fairer. If that is their view, it would be useful for them to explain that.
I am not sure whether we will press the amendment to a vote; that depends a lot on the Minister’s response, the information he provides and any follow-up information he commits to providing.
Mel Stride
I thank colleagues for their contributions. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about the rationale for making this change, and whether it was simply to treat everybody equally—there is clearly a point to that, but is it sufficient to justify the change? Equality of treatment has its merits, but, as I explained in my opening remarks, there is the issue of bringing into the corporation tax regime those who hitherto have been engaged in activities that fall due to income tax rather than corporation tax. With that come all the anti-avoidance measures, including the corporate interest restriction, the hybrid mismatch regime, the carried-forward income loss restrictions and the capital gains and loss restrictions that were set out in the recent Budget. That is quite an important point.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister for attempting to explain. Pulling those people into all those anti-avoidance measures still results in a negative impact on the Exchequer. I contend that there may be no point in pulling them into these different measures if there is no positive benefit to be had from doing so.
Mel Stride
The latest OBR estimate is that the changes will raise £365 million across the forecast period, although I will come to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East about the timing of the figures. She referred to the consultation that we carried out between March and June 2017; we came back with our report on 1 December 2017. Draft legislation for the UK property income measure was published on L-day on 6 July, and the technical consultation was run until 31 August 2018. Responses were received from representative bodies from the property retail sector and accountancy firms. The measure was consulted on pretty thoroughly.
On the timing issues raised by the hon. Lady, the way in which the Office for National Statistics tax accounting treatment works means that increased corporation tax receipts are scored in the year of implementation, but the corresponding reduction in income tax receipts is scored in a subsequent year. There is a mismatch between the moneys coming in under the CT arrangements and the moneys that have been transferred into that regime, which do not go into the scorecard until a year later. That would largely explain the profile to which she referred.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister is trying to suggest that it would be a great cost, but I made it clear that HMRC would have to compile a list of these individuals anyhow in order to inform them of their tax liabilities. There would not be a collation cost. There may be a cost from other aspects of it, but not from the collation.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is right that HMRC will be privy to the information, but there is a difference between being privy to the information and treating with individuals and companies in terms of their tax return. Collating all that information and presenting it in the form that she envisages is a distinct activity.
I undertake to write to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about the online number that she discovered and the numbers that were provided in the policy document. I wish I was so good that I just knew all the answers and was over the detail to that degree, but I will certainly write to her on that, and on the cost of making the changes to the system. I am happy to have a look at the £160,000 figure that she raised and see how it breaks down.
Kirsty Blackman
If possible, it would also be useful to know before we come back on Report whether the Government expect the revenue impact for the Exchequer to be negative in future years, beyond the four-year timescale that is predicted. That makes a difference in terms of whether it is, as the Minister says, a good measure across the four years or a really bad measure across 10 or 12 years.
Mel Stride
I think I am right in saying that over the longer term, in revenue terms the measure is likely to be broadly neutral. The OBR, of course, will only cast out across the scorecard period. It will not analyse the fiscal impacts beyond that, but if the hon. Lady would care to write to me with any questions on that, to the extent that I can answer them of course I will do so.
I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but we will press amendment 38 to a vote. Although I took on board his responses, I am concerned that we have a lack of clarity about the revenue impact of a measure, which means that as a Committee it is difficult for us to make a judgment on it. When he tried to explain why there might be a negative amount on some projections of the impact in subsequent years, he stated that that was due to the different timing of reporting of corporation tax revenue and income tax revenue. That would explain a difference for one year, but not for subsequent years, so I am still concerned about why there might have been a negative suggested figure into subsequent years.
In addition, it is not clear to me whether the figures that have been set out, whether that is one set or another, take into account the impact of coming within the scope of anti-avoidance measures and so on. That would obviously just be a projection in any case, but we surely need to have more information before we can take an informed view.
Peter Dowd
On a slightly wider but, I think, pertinent point, in the Red Book for this year, corporation tax for 2019-20 is £60 billion and by 2023 it is £66 billion. Does the hon. Lady find that her concerns about this specific thing are compounded by the uncertainty about, for example, the deal we will be debating in the not-too-distant future?
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with my hon. Friend. When we are talking about this sector in particular, we must always bear in mind the impact not only on revenue but overall on investment and the need to ensure that high-quality infrastructure is provided. I know that that is enormously important and something that the Minister is concerned with and working on. For the reasons I have set out, we will press amendment 38 to a vote.
On new clause 4, I say in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that there may be some agreement on some issues, but on corporation tax rates there is a difference to the extent that Labour feels that we need to work with other countries to prevent a race to the bottom. That is something we have already been doing. A race to the bottom is damaging, particularly when many businesses tell us that the corporation tax rates do not drive their decision to locate in the UK; they may be one of a basket of factors, but other matters, particularly sunk costs, are important. Therefore, we are happy for our proposals to come under scrutiny at every point, and we hope that in doing so we might persuade the SNP to come to our view as well.
Kirsty Blackman
To be totally clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Oxford East did not mean this—we do not support a race to the bottom either. Our manifesto position was that we supported no further reductions in corporation tax, which is slightly different from the Labour party position.
In the spirit of trying not to take up too much of the Committee’s time and the fact that amendments 35 and 38 are broadly similar and we have covered the ground of both amendments quite a lot during the course of the debate—although the answers we received could have been clearer—we are happy not to press amendment 35 and to support Labour party amendment 38.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Non-UK resident companies carrying on UK property businesses etc.
Amendment proposed: 38, page 210, line 45 [Schedule 5], at end insert—
“Part 2A
Annual review of effects of this schedule
34A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake an annual review of the effects of the provisions of this Schedule on corporation tax receipts.
(2) The report of the review under sub-paragraph (1) must be laid before the House of Commons before—
(a) in respect of the first review, within 12 months of this Schedule coming into force, and
(b) in respect of each subsequent review, within 12 months of the date on which the report of the previous review was laid before the House of Commons.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This amendment requires an annual review of the revenue effects of this Schedule, in each year following the Schedule coming into force.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in schedule 6, page 220, line 2, leave out paragraph 11.
This amendment removes the proposed extension of the review period to 15 months.
Amendment 37, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected change to payments of diverted profits tax and any associated changes to overall payments made to the Commissioners arising from the provisions of this Schedule, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances of the diverted profits tax provisions in this Bill.
Amendment 40, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to diverted profits tax in this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances on the provisions in Schedule 6.
Amendment 41, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review diverted profits tax against its policy objectives and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review DPT against its policy objectives.
Amendment 42, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review comparing diverted profits tax against a Digital Services Tax and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review DPT against the Government’s proposed Digital Services tax.
Amendment 43, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on the matter specified in subsection (2).
(2) That matter is the effects on the public finances of the the provisions in this Schedule coming into effect in the tax year 2019-20 compared to previous or subsequent tax years.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review under subsection (1) before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of introducing this measure in 2019-20.
Amendment 45, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 After section 105 insert—
105A Public register of diverted profits tax payments
(1) The Commissioners must provide information to the Treasury listing those companies that have made payments pursuant to a charge of diverted profits tax, and the amounts of those payments.
(2) The Treasury shall publish a register of companies paying diverted profits tax based on the information provided by the Commissioners under subsection (1), and shall make that register available to the general public.”
This amendment requires the publication of a public register of those companies that pay diverted profits tax.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 18 makes changes that will ensure that the diverted profits tax continues to prevent multinationals from diverting profits from the UK to artificially and unfairly lower their tax bill. The Government have created a tax system that rewards entrepreneurship, drives growth and is based on low corporation taxes, but does not tolerate any company or person exploiting the rules to avoid paying their fair share. In 2015 we therefore introduced DPT, which counters aggressive tax planning by multinationals. It is targeted at particular behaviours and arrangements, not at particular taxpayers or sectors.
DPT has been a success. Every year, HMRC publishes statistics on the revenue that it has raised, and every year they show that it has raised more than originally forecast. Last year alone, it raised £388 million—40% more than in 2016-17. Clause 18 will ensure that DPT continues to prevent multinationals from exploiting our tax system and continues to raise money for our vital public services.
When Parliament introduced DPT, it was intended that diverted profits would be subject either to DPT or to corporation tax, but not both. Concerns have been raised by some commentators that the current legislation does not make that clear. Clause 18 will put it beyond doubt by clarifying that diverted profits subject to DPT are not also liable to CT.
When DPT is charged, companies are required to pay up front before they can lodge a dispute with HMRC during the DPT review period. DPT incentivises companies to agree adjustments to their CT return during the DPT review period and thus pay the correct amount of corporation tax on their diverted profits, thereby removing such profits from the DPT charged. That reduces the likelihood of costly and time-consuming litigation, while ensuring that companies pay the right amount of corporation tax in the UK. Clause 18 will reinforce that incentive by allowing taxpayers to formally amend their tax return to bring diverted profits under corporation tax during the first 12 months of the review period.
The arrangements to which DPT applies are often complex, and in some cases the current 12-month review period is insufficient to reach a resolution. At present, taxpayers are able at any point during the 12-month period to provide HMRC with information that it must take into account in determining the final tax charged. Clause 18 will extend the DPT review period by three months, ensuring that HMRC has enough time to tackle even the most contrived and complex arrangements. The final three months will be reserved for HMRC alone to consider the arrangements and determine the right amount of tax to be paid.
Amendment 46 would remove the proposed extension of the review period. Because companies pay DPT up front, it is in their interest to resolve cases quickly during the DPT review period. Furthermore, the time available to a company to amend its tax return will remain at 12 months. The extension of the review period is necessary to ensure that HMRC has enough time to tackle complex tax-driven arrangements used by businesses in an attempt to unfairly reduce their UK tax bill. This modest extension provides no new power or relief for taxpayers.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the clause and schedule. Colleagues will be well aware that DPT was introduced back in 2015, following enormous pressure from campaigners, the Public Accounts Committee and the Opposition to ensure that large, multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. DPT focuses on two forms of tax avoidance. The first is where
“a company with a UK taxable presence uses arrangements lacking economic substance to artificially divert profits from the UK.”
The second is where
“a person carries out activities in the UK for a foreign company that are designed to avoid creating a Permanent Establishment”
and becoming taxable through that route.
As the Minister set out, the Bill makes a number of changes to DPT. First, the changes attempt to ensure that the rules work more effectively to prevent avoidance arrangements giving rise to planning opportunities from October this year. The changes clarify that diverted profits will be taxed under only DPT or corporation tax from 1 April 2015 onwards; obviously, this is a retrospective tax.
The measures also extend to 38 months the period in which HMRC can issue a preliminary notice stating that it intends to apply DPT in the first category of cases —that is, where taxpayers are believed to be using arrangements lacking economic substance in order to expatriate profits. The Opposition will certainly support that change. As mentioned, however, the measures also extend very substantially—by 25%, from one year to 15 months—the review period for HMRC to work with a company to examine how much profit has been diverted.
Finally, the measures enable the amendment of corporate tax returns to include diverted profits during the first 12 months of the review period, and to allow the inclusion of diverted profits on the corporation tax return of the affected party for the first 12 months of the review period, in cases where a foreign company is believed to have attempted to avoid permanent establishment through artificial methods.
We have tabled a number of amendments to clause 18 and schedule 6. Amendment 45, as was mentioned, would require a public register of firms that have paid the diverted profits tax. Colleagues will remember, I am sure, that when that tax was introduced, it was widely described by the Government as a Google tax. Indeed, journalists were briefed by Government spokespeople using that term. The Minister has argued that DPT is not targeted at any particular sector; that is not how it was described and promoted at the time.
It is not clear to the Opposition whether Google has actually been covered by DPT. Back in January 2016, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that DPT provided the context for HMRC’s £130 million settlement with Google. Of course, that was announced to great fanfare, but very quickly there was a lot of concern that it was actually a very poor deal for taxpayers, because Google’s settlement with HMRC in January 2016 covered a whole 10 years, from 2005 to 2015, and constituted £117 million in back taxes and £13 million in interest. Fairly obviously, it was not the Google tax, DPT, that led to that settlement, because it had applied for only a twentieth of the time for which the settlement was achieved—just six months of that time. Also, the so-called Google tax had not led to any appreciable unwinding of complex tax structures. Of course, we need to put the £130 million settlement in the context of the then £4.6 billion-worth of UK sales by Google. I appreciate that that is comparing apples with pears, but it does put things in context.
In concluding the deal, HMRC accepted Google’s claim that its UK staff only supported their colleagues in Ireland—something that the PAC discussed at length and which I will not go into here. Suffice it to say that it is contested. Interestingly, that great radical Rupert Murdoch stated that the tax payments by Google were
“token amounts for PR purposes”.
Our amendment is designed to shine a light on which taxpayers have actually been subject to this tax, given the way in which it was presented when it was introduced, so that the public can judge its effectiveness for themselves. It would also provide a first step towards the country-by-country reporting for multinational companies that the Government were forced to accept as a possibility through an amendment to the 2016 Finance Bill, although they have not yet enacted that. They have the power to enact it through that amendment, but have not yet gone ahead with it. This amendment would at least take us a step along the way.
Amendment 40 would require a review of the diverted profits tax against its stated aims; that would include the extent to which it has raised revenue for the Exchequer. It is very similar to amendment 37 from the SNP. The Minister intimated that the revenues coming from DPT were higher than forecast, and that does appear to be the case, but it would be helpful if the Minister could delineate for us the different components of his Department’s assessment of the value of DPT. That is because, as I understand it, there are two components to its reported value: the direct tax take from DPT itself and the additional tax resulting from altered company tax practices. It is not clear to me whether that is just about the extra corporation tax or something else, so perhaps the Minister can illuminate it for us.
It would also be helpful if we could understand why there has been such an increase in the projected number of taxpayers coming under the measure. Anecdotally, many tax practitioners have told me that they do not think that it is necessarily covering the very biggest firms—many had anticipated that it would do so—particularly digital firms, but it is covering a large number of other firms. To that extent, it seems to be quite different from the initial prospectus, so can the Minister explain why, on this issue, George Osborne seems to have got things wrong? I admit that that was not an isolated occurrence, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain it.
George Osborne, when DPT was introduced, said that it would also act as a catalyst for the restructuring of companies that were seeking to avoid permanent establishment in the UK and to claim false economic substance in low or no-tax jurisdictions to avoid UK corporation tax. We have not, from what I can see, had any evaluation of DPT’s impact in connection to that. I have not heard of many significant changes in corporate structure that can be specifically attributed to DPT. They may well exist, but we need to know about them in order to have an appropriate understanding of the efficacy or otherwise of the measure. That is what is called for in amendment 41. Related to discussion around our previous amendment, if increased tax from alterations in corporate structure is counted as part of the revenue from DPT, surely it is important for us to know what those alterations in corporate structure are in the first place. I think that would be helpful for the Committee.
Amendment 42 requires a review of DPT’s effectiveness as against the Government’s proposed digital services tax—DPT versus DST, as it were. Colleagues will, of course, be aware that DST has not been included in the Bill; it is only being consulted on. Strangely, at the same time as saying that that tax would impel other countries to implement similar provisions by starting a conversation on the merits of novel approaches to taxing digital giants, the tax includes some weaknesses that, it seems to me, do not apply to the European approach. It is set at 2% of revenues, rather than at 3%. It also includes the so-called safe harbour provision, which means that it is not paid by companies that do not indicate that they are making profits. That is exactly how many of them have avoided corporation tax, so how such a measure would catch many of those companies is unclear to me.
Our amendment would ask for an explicit comparison of DPT with DST. That is surely necessary given that they embody fundamentally different assumptions about the appropriate basis for corporate taxation. DPT assumes that transfer pricing is still alive and kicking, and a tenable basis for assigning taxing rights, while DST obviously uses a particular form of revenue as the taxable quantum, rather than profit. That is surely necessary in a context where there are many discussions ongoing at an international level about the appropriate basis for corporate taxation, including whether there should be a greater focus on value derived from branding. I understand that has some support on the US side.
I will briefly describe our two additional amendments in the three minutes that remain. Amendment 46 removes the extension of the review period during which the taxpayer can make representations to HMRC about why its assessment is invalid. Despite what the Minister said, I do not think that we have been provided with sufficient evidence about why that is necessary. If there is a problem with companies providing evidence towards the end of that review period and HMRC is having difficulty crunching that evidence, surely it would be more helpful for those companies to be required to provide the evidence a bit earlier in the process. If evidence being provided later on in the existing review period was causing problems for HMRC, surely that would be one way of dealing with it.
Finally, as the Minister mentioned, amendment 43 would consider the impact of introducing the measures within this specific time period as against another. Again, we feel that we have not been provided with a sufficiently clear rationale for the timing, so it would be helpful to learn more about the implementation schedule set out within the Bill.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 46, in schedule 6, page 220, line 2, leave out paragraph 11.
This amendment removes the proposed extension of the review period to 15 months.
Amendment 37, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected change to payments of diverted profits tax and any associated changes to overall payments made to the Commissioners arising from the provisions of this Schedule, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances of the diverted profits tax provisions in this Bill.
Amendment 40, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to diverted profits tax in this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances on the provisions in Schedule 6.
Amendment 41, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review diverted profits tax against its policy objectives and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review DPT against its policy objectives.
Amendment 42, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review comparing diverted profits tax against a Digital Services Tax and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review DPT against the Government’s proposed Digital Services tax.
Amendment 43, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on the matter specified in subsection (2).
(2) That matter is the effects on the public finances of the the provisions in this Schedule coming into effect in the tax year 2019-20 compared to previous or subsequent tax years.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review under subsection (1) before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of introducing this measure in 2019-20.
Amendment 45, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 After section 105 insert—
105A Public register of diverted profits tax payments
(1) The Commissioners must provide information to the Treasury listing those companies that have made payments pursuant to a charge of diverted profits tax, and the amounts of those payments.
(2) The Treasury shall publish a register of companies paying diverted profits tax based on the information provided by the Commissioners under subsection (1), and shall make that register available to the general public.”
This amendment requires the publication of a public register of those companies that pay diverted profits tax.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
And a very enjoyable lunch break it was—not that the Committee is not enjoyable, too. [Laughter.] I dug myself out of that one. I want to speak both to Labour’s amendments and to our own, but I will not speak for long.
I find Labour’s amendment 46, which would remove the proposed extension of the review period to 15 months, particularly interesting because I agree with Labour Front-Bench Members that the Government have not adequately explained the effect of changing the review period. More could have been done to provide the Committee with information about the reason for the extension and the decision-making process behind it. On that basis, I would be happy to support the Labour party, but that is not to say that the Government could not come back in future years with reasonable information to justify the extension and set out the impact on the tax take.
Labour’s amendment 43 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of introducing the diverted profits tax in 2019-20—something else that the Government have not adequately explained. We would like a little more information on matters such as the difficulties for organisations resulting from the tax’s implementation and its impact on the Exchequer, because we need to balance those things when we make decisions on tax changes.
The Scottish National party’s amendment 37, which would require the Chancellor to review the effect on public finances of the diverted profits tax provisions in the Bill, is broader than some of the specific requests that have been made for individual pieces of information. I understand the Minister’s point that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regularly provides information to the general public about the diverted profits tax, but I think we could have been given a little more information about the proposals’ expected effect on revenue and on the tax gap.
Finally, I know that explanatory notes do not form part of a Bill, but the “Background note” sections are usually quite useful. However, I did not find the background note on clause 18 useful in the slightest, because it does not give a huge amount of information about the rationale behind the Government’s decision or behind the individual changes being made to the diverted profits tax. It simply says:
“This measure supports that aim”—
the aim behind the diverted profits tax—
“through amendments to close tax planning opportunities.”
If it had given a little more information about what those amendments are and what they mean, the Minister would have avoided facing quite so many questions from the Committee.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I would have intervened, Mr Howarth, but you have provoked me into making a brief speech instead.
Corporate tax structures are very complex. Even things like the movement of exchange rates or where products are produced can make a substantial difference to a company’s profit and loss account. As I understand it, the diverted profits tax is a backstop—I use the word lightly—in the tax system. The reality is that the Government are trying to protect corporation tax revenue.
Periodically, HMRC will challenge corporation tax computations to see whether companies are paying the right amount of tax. DPT gives the Revenue a little more ammunition to get answers out of those companies and to ensure that the tax paid is correct. I suppose that HMRC would randomly pick several companies, or more, and simply challenge some of the computations. Where they found that an accurate tax statement had not been put in, perhaps they would go back a number of months and issue a notice for payment.
As the Minister pointed out, the companies could still elect to pay via the corporation tax structure rather than this tax. I do not think that having a report on this specific tax would draw very much information, because it will vary widely. There will be some years where quite a lot of back tax will be caught and captured, and a back payment might be picked up from a big company. In other years, all the tax computations will be fairly accurate and it will not pick up very much. My guess is that, instead of a straight line going up, as there is for most taxes, such as VAT, there will be variation each year depending on which companies are challenged, and whether HMRC hits the jackpot or finds that the companies’ accountants know what they are doing.
When looking at this backstop, we really have to look at overall corporation tax revenue, which, notwithstanding the fact that the rate has been cut, has actually gone up. I therefore hope that the Government reject these reports—the Government have been far too reasonable in this Committee anyway—stick to their guns, and reject whatever the Opposition want.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I will be brief, as I am conscious that the Committee is moving fairly slowly through the clauses, and we have quite a lot of the Bill still to cover.
The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the diverted profits tax and the digital services tax. Earlier on in her speech, in a different context, she used the expression “comparing apples with pears”. I think that is what we are doing here, and that lies at the heart of the objection to her amendment.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that I have a lot of respect for him. However, that was exactly my point: the two taxes are based on a fundamentally different view of what should be taxed. Obviously, a digital services tax would be revenue based, whereas DPT is still profit based, and based on the arm’s length principle. Surely one should therefore compare them in terms of their efficacy at generating tax revenue, preventing avoidance, and so on. The fact that they are different does not mean that it is not legitimate to compare them.
Mel Stride
I understand what the hon. Lady says, but the expression “preventing avoidance”, which she has just used, lies at the heart of the meaningful distinction. DPT is about avoidance, as eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, whereas the digital services tax is not about avoidance at all; it is about reflecting the fact that the international tax regime is no longer fit for purpose when it comes to taxing certain types of digital businesses—those that operate through digital platforms, and that have a relationship with UK users and generate value as a consequence. She mentioned Google specifically, but it covers search engines in general, certain online marketplaces and social media platforms.
The two taxes are so distinct. It is important to place on the record that the digital services tax is not an anti-avoidance measure; it is about redefining the way in which those businesses pay their fair share of tax.
Kirsty Blackman
To probe further the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford East, does the Minister not agree that it would be valuable for the Committee to consider the two different types of taxation, and their efficacy, so that in future when decisions are made on tax matters we can work out which would be the best type of tax measure in any given situation?
Mel Stride
It is important to review or consider all taxes in relation to other taxes as a matter of course, because they all have their own positive aspects, distortionary effects, negative aspects, impacts on the economy that might not be desirable, and so forth. It is important that we do that for all taxes. I say to the hon. Lady that, in the case of the digital services tax, we are now consulting on the detail of how that might operate should we introduce it in 2020, in the event that there is not a multilateral movement across the OECD or the European Union that allows us to work in conjunction with other tax jurisdictions. In the case of the specific tax that we are considering in Committee, there will be ample opportunity to look at it in the kind of detail that I know she will be keen on.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the issue of the split, as I understood it, between the impact of DPT as directly revenue raising through the additional corporation tax that is paid, and the deterrent effect that protects revenues that otherwise would have been avoided. We publish annual statistics that show how much tax DPT raises directly and how much it raises indirectly through corporation tax. This year, we published a detailed note setting out the methodology that was used to calculate the revenue raised by DPT, and I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with either that information or a signpost to where it can be found.
The hon. Lady raised the specific issue of the three-month extension that we have been considering in Committee. She made the point well: rather than extending the period by three months, why do we not stick to 12 months and expect the corporation in question to speed up their process? I think we would still be left with the problem that there would have to be a moment in time when that company could still provide information—HMRC would be required to take it into account—which might be of a very complex nature. It would be very difficult for HMRC to make an immediate and reasonable judgment at the last minute. I think that is what drives the importance of separating the time available to the corporation in those circumstances from the additional time that is available solely to HMRC to conduct its final review without additional information suddenly appearing at extremely short notice. I should also point out that the 12-month process is already an accelerated process, and typically we are—in circumstances where the additional three-month time period becomes pertinent—looking at very complex situations, which take time to consider fully.
On the basis of the extract that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North presented to the Committee, it seems to me that more information could have been given in the explanatory notes to make it absolutely clear what it refers to. I will have a closer look at that outside the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications. I would like to accept his kind offer to share with me and the Committee—I am sure other Members will be interested as well—the information that he referred to, which sets out the different components of DPT. I think that would be enormously helpful.
The hon. Member for Poole seemed to suggest that there would be two reasons for fluctuation across years. I think he used the word “random” to describe HMRC’s choice of which companies to investigate—they could be large or small. I would hope that it would not be a random process, although I am not suggesting he was intimating that. I would hope that it was based on intelligence and that HMRC—I would like it to undertake more of this than it does at the moment—used some of the data sources available to it to drive the process of determining which companies to look at. Hopefully that would not be a source of too much variation.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there might be variation because it would be, in some way, a reflection of the compliance-mindedness of tax practitioners in different corporations at any one point. Surely that should improve over time, rather than fluctuate. There may be other reasons for the variation, but I feel we still need to have a clear understanding of it.
Sir Robert Syms
My central point is that if HMRC challenges a corporation tax computation, it does not have to do it every single year with the same company, because essentially it will come to an arrangement about what is acceptable—for at least a period of years. Then it can go and look for the next company. I see it as a rolling process in which essentially there is a dialogue between HMRC and the accountants of the companies. Therefore, everybody knows quite where they stand, and perhaps the companies will benefit as well.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for that clarification of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I suppose on that basis one would assume that the take would go down, if there was truly a deterrent action. It is not clear to me that that has occurred, but it would be interesting to have the analysis and review, so that we could see whether it is so. That is what our amendments aim to do.
I took on board what the Minister said about the review period, but I am a little confused. As I understand it, the additional time provided for the review period in the Bill is not of a different character from the rest of the review period. It is not a question of the additional three months being just for HMRC to deliberate. It is also a period during which the company can provide additional information—so, potentially, they can now do that right up to the end of 15 rather than 12 months. Therefore it is unclear to me that HMRC will necessarily be helped—unless I am missing something, which I may well be.
Mel Stride
To clarify, briefly, it is not as the hon. Lady views it: the additional three months would be solely for HMRC to carry out its deliberations, albeit that up to the 11th hour within the 12-month period further information could be provided by the company.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. It was not completely clear to me from the material provided to us. I underline the points that have been made by the SNP in that regard: it would have helped us to understand the impact of some of the measures if the explanatory notes had included a bit more of the thinking behind them.
In view of what the Minister has said, we are willing to drop some of our amendments. However, we shall want to vote on amendment 40, which is quite similar to the SNP’s amendment 37, and amendments 43 and 46.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Diverted profits tax
Amendment proposed: 46, in schedule 6, page 220, line 2, leave out paragraph 11.—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This amendment removes the proposed extension of the review period to 15 months.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 21, page 13, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the preceding provisions of this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the changes made by Clause 21.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 48, in clause 21, page 13, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, publish a list of additional non-UK resident companies that are classified as having permanent establishments as a result of restricting the application of section 1143 of the CTA 2010.
(8) The list in subsection (7) must be updated annually.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish a list of all additional permanent establishments created as a result of the changes made by Clause 21 three months after the passing of the Act and annually thereafter.
Clause stand part.
Anneliese Dodds
The clause focuses on attempts to wriggle out of triggering permanent establishment status by maintaining that economic activity is preparatory or auxiliary. Currently, certain so-called preparatory or auxiliary activities are understandably exempt from being classified as indicating a permanent establishment. They tend to be of low value and include storing products for the company involved, purchasing goods for it and collecting information for it.
Action 7 in the OECD’s BEPS—base erosion and profit shifting—process included a range of measures to tighten up in the OECD’s model tax treaty section 5, including in this area. The model tax treaty includes a far-reaching anti-fragmentation rule to prevent activities in a jurisdiction from being intentionally, artificially fragmented between different companies in a group merely so that those activities will not trigger permanent establishment status because they can be classified as preparatory or auxiliary.
The OECD rules prevent the preparatory and auxiliary exemption from applying in situations where there is already a permanent establishment in the country, and where the overall activity carried out both by the company concerned and by companies that are closely related to it are not preparatory or auxiliary. In both cases, however, the activities must constitute part of a so-called “cohesive business operation”. In practice, the measure puts into UK law what the UK has already signed up to via its ratification of the OECD’s multilateral instrument for the amendment and updating of tax treaties, which is now sequentially being applied to our existing tax treaties, as we have discussed on a number of occasions just along the Committee corridor.
We seek to amend the clause in a number of ways. First, amendment 48 requires the Chancellor to publish a list of all additional permanent establishments created by the clause, and to do so annually. There is a serious problem of accountability in our tax system. Those who have engaged in tax avoidance are not publicly held responsible. In response to the debate on Second Reading, it looks very clear what tax avoidance is and what it is not. It is behaviour that is legal, but although it may follow the letter of tax law, it does not follow its spirit.
Contrary to what was argued in the previous debate in the Chamber, individual savings accounts do not constitute tax avoidance because their creation was intended and promoted by legislators. On the contrary, artificial arrangements are tax avoidance, because policy makers, whether in the UK or elsewhere—such as for the Dutch and Irish sandwiches—did not indicate that they wished their tax law to be used by those schemes to exploit loopholes.
Relying purely on the spirit of the law or treaties, rather than their letter, leaves our system open to tax avoidance, which is one of the many reasons the Opposition support the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule—not just anti-abuse. We have talked about that in this Committee. In any case, we must understand which firms profited from these forms of artificial fragmentation. Our amendment asks for that.
It is particularly important to have that analysis at a time when the US approach to corporate taxation and determining where permanent establishment lies is in flux. The corporate tax rate in the US is going down, but that problem is compounded by tightening up in a range of areas, including the adoption of many elements of the BEPS process relating to permanent establishments. It is important to assess the efficacy of measures put forward here in relation to what is occurring in the US, where claims have been made that the situation will lead to onshoring of activity. That remains to be seen, but it will be useful to have an analysis so that we can perform that assessment.
Amendment 47 would require a review of the revenue effect of clause 21. It is not possible to judge its likely efficacy without understanding the extent to which it will promote the correct payment of corporation tax. I note that some jurisdictions, such as Argentina, have included what appear to be more stringent requirements in their permanent establishment roles, going beyond the OECD requirements.
It is important that we properly understand the likely impact of the proposed rules. There has been a debate about this issue at OECD level for quite a long period—since about 2013. There are very different views about whether the OECD approach is sufficiently stringent. It is important to listen to some alternative views that were referenced when this particular action in the BEPS process was investigated, particularly from the BEPS monitoring group in 2015. That group is composed of a variety of experts looking at international tax law and a number of civil society organisations—I will not try to pronounce their names because some are in Spanish and I would get it humiliatingly wrong.
In response to a call for evidence in relation to changes in the OECD tax treaty chapter 5, the group maintained that although an anti-fragmentation rule was proposed by the OECD, it was
“only in relation to pre-sales related activities, such as storage, display or delivery”,
as delivered by this clause. The group suggested that was problematic and did not go far enough because:
“These proposed changes would therefore not affect other types of structures which fragment functions such as manufacturing, purchasing, design, marketing and customer support.”
It continued:
“Moreover, the current proposals would have limited application to services.”
It felt that there was a particular problem for developing countries—I appreciate that we are not in that situation. It said that for the countries it works with often there was also a particular problem from “stripped-risk contract manufacturers”. It argued that, as an alternative to the BEPS anti-fragmentation proposals,
“One way to deal with this would be for the Commentary to make clear that where decisions are made locally in a country by personnel of any group member or agent that affect the commercial risks borne by any group member, then that group member will be considered to maintain a ‘place of management’ within that country within the meaning of Paragraph 2 of Article 5.”
That is quite a different approach from assessing whether fragmentation is occurring, and it would be helpful to understand why the Government believe their approach is sufficiently stringent in the light of critiques such as that one. That is another reason why I think our amendment is necessary.
Mel Stride
The clause makes changes to ensure that foreign businesses operating in the UK cannot avoid creating a taxable presence by splitting up their activities between different locations and companies. A non-resident company is liable to UK corporation tax only if it has a permanent establishment here—I shall use the abbreviation PE for permanent establishment. A PE may be a fixed place of business, also referred to as a branch, or the activity of an agent. We are mostly concerned here with branches.
As the hon. Member for Oxford East has outlined, certain preparatory or auxiliary activities, which are normally low value, such as storing the company’s own products, purchasing goods or collecting information for the non-resident company, are classed as exempt activities and do not create a permanent establishment. Some foreign businesses could artificially split their operations among different group companies or between different locations to take advantage of those exemptions and so avoid being liable to corporation tax.
To counter that, the OECD and G20 recommended modifying the definition of permanent establishment. The UK has adopted that change in its tax treaties, the bilateral tax arrangements that divide up taxing rights between countries, with which the hon. Lady and I are most familiar, having taken a series of pieces of secondary legislation through this House on those matters. It has given effect to that change through the BEPS multilateral instrument, as she pointed out, which entered into force for the UK on 1 October 2018.
Clause 21 replicates that treaty change in UK domestic law to make the change to tax treaties effective. It is most likely to affect non-resident manufacturing and distribution businesses that might try to structure their UK operations in order to minimise their UK tax footprint. The measure sends a signal that the UK Government are determined to tackle tax avoidance by foreign multinationals.
Turning to the two amendments tabled by the Opposition, amendment 47 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the changes made by this clause within six months of the Bill becoming law. I cannot support this amendment. Information on revenue effects will not be available six months after the passing of the Act, given that the first accounting periods likely to be affected are those ending on 31 March 2019, for which the filing date of company tax returns will be 31 March 2020.
The Government also cannot support amendment 48, which would require publication three months after the passing of the Act of a list of all additional PEs created as a result of this measure. HMRC would not know, as a company is not required to disclose, whether a declared PE has occurred as a result of this measure or for some other reason. The information would be available to HMRC only if it opened an inquiry into every non-resident company that newly declared a permanent establishment. That, as I hope the Committee would agree, is impractical. It would not be an appropriate use of inquiry powers and it would impose a significant burden on HMRC and the taxpayer for little revenue benefit. The Exchequer impact assessment has scored this measure as likely to have negligible yield. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee and invite Members to reject the amendments.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications and comments. I think we would be willing to withdraw the amendment, but I note that he did not refer to the critique that I mentioned by the BEPS monitoring group on whether the definition of fragmentation coming within the OECD process was sufficient. I do not want to detain the Committee on that point any longer, but I ask him to bear that critique in mind as we go through any additional tax treaties; I am sure we will come to some in the future with developing countries, because arguably this is a significant problem for them. It can be difficult for them to apply even the conventions in the model tax treaty to capture economic activity within their boundaries when they need to build up their tax base. Of course, we give many of those countries development aid.
As I said, I am willing to withdraw the amendment, but I would be grateful if the Minister kept those points in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Group relief etc: meaning of “UK related” company
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 24, page 14, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) At the end of section 134 of CTA 2010, insert—
‘(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review any change, attributable to the amendments made to this section by section 24 of the Finance Act 2019, to payments of corporation tax.
(3) A report of the review under subsection (2) must be laid before the House of Commons by 5 April 2020.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of this Clause, as far as they relate to section 134 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 24, page 14, line 4, at end insert—
“(1B) At the end of section 134 of CTA 2010, insert—
‘(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on the property market attributable to the amendments made to this section by section 24 of the Finance Act 2019.
(5) A report of the review under subsection (4) must be laid before the House of Commons by 5 April 2020.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this Clause, as far as they relate to section 134 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, on the property market and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Amendment 53, in clause 24, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) At the end of section 188CJ of CTA 2010, insert—
‘(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review any change, attributable to the amendments made to this section by section 24 of the Finance Act 2019, to payments of corporation tax.
(3) A report of the review under subsection (2) must be laid before the House of Commons by 5 April 2020.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of this Clause, as far as they relate to section 188CJ of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Amendment 54, in clause 24, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
“(2B) At the end of section 188CJ of CTA 2010, insert—
‘(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on the property market attributable to the amendments made to this section by section 24 of the Finance Act 2019.
(5) A report of the review under subsection (4) must be laid before the House of Commons by 5 April 2020.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this Clause, as far as they relate to section 188CJ of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, on the property market and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Clause stand part.
Anneliese Dodds
The clause extends the definition of “UK-related company” for the purposes of group relief to include non-UK resident companies that are within the charge to corporation tax. That change follows previous announcements concerning the tax treatment of non-resident companies carrying out property-related business.
I think it will be helpful to indicate exactly what group relief relates to and why it is relevant. As I am sure the Committee is aware, group relief relates to the process whereby a so-called surrendering company that makes a corporate tax loss can pass certain kinds of losses to another company in its group. The benefiting company—the “claimant company”—can use the loss passed on to it to reduce its corporation tax liability. Apparently, the claimant company often then pays the surrendering company for the loss it received, up to the value of the tax that was saved. That payment is not counted for tax purposes. The surrendering company benefits from that arrangement, as it has access to those funds from the claimant company rather than having to hang on to the loss for subsequent years. There is no change to the circumstances of the claimant company—it cancels out some of its corporation tax and just passes that saving on to its fellow group member.
That regime was partially liberalised in 2016, albeit that it was then counteracted by the introduction for large companies of a limit, which means that only 50% of profits can be offset against losses carried forward. That ceiling applies across the group, not to individual firms. There are a number of stipulations concerning the extent of common share ownership, which are intended to prevent the false creation of groups in relation to group relief. It is necessary for one company to be the owner of three quarters or more of the other company’s share capital, or for a third company to own three quarters or more of the share capital of both companies involved, in order for them to be counted as part of a group for this purpose.
Other tests attempt to ensure that a genuine rather than a spurious group is involved. In addition, only certain types of income loss qualify, including trading losses, excess interest charges and management expenses. Until now, both the surrendering company and the claimant company had to be resident in the UK or carrying on a trade through a permanent establishment in the UK, although in some circumstances European economic area-based companies have been able to act as surrendering companies.
The Opposition have tabled four amendments to the clause. Amendments 51 and 53 would require a review of the impact on payments of corporation tax of the different elements of these proposals. Amendments 52 and 54 would require an examination of the proposals’ impact on property markets.
As I said, amendments 51 and 53 would require a review of the revenue effects of the clause, particularly on corporation tax. The measures in the clause appear to be part of a group of measures in the Bill that attempt to equalise the treatment of non-UK and UK-resident property companies when it comes to taxation. We have already discussed the fact that such companies will be transferred into corporation tax and standard capital gains tax. In many cases, although the measures concerned might be viewed as levelling the playing field, they might also be viewed as causing risks to revenue, not least due to the reduced rate of corporation tax, which we discussed before lunch.
Clearly, this change would benefit non-resident firms by enabling them more easily to plan when to pay corporation tax with the group of which they are a member. It would therefore to be helpful to have a clearer indication than has already been provided of the likely revenue effects of the clause. I am not saying that that ease and greater facility, in terms of planning corporation tax incidence, is necessarily a problem, but it will potentially have a revenue impact.
On a related note, we surely need a review of the impact of the clause on the UK property market, as would be required by our amendments 52 and 54. It will be particularly helpful if that review examines whether or not more non-EEA companies will be brought into the scope of this kind of intra-group transfer. It seems that that may well be the case. Currently, aside from UK-resident companies, only EEA-based companies, under certain circumstances, benefit from the ability to transfer loss, and thus tax incidence, across the group of which they are a member.
It would also be helpful to understand whether the new measures could help to incentivise more complex group structures that stretch beyond the UK and both into and outwith the EEA. There may be merits in the resultant diversification of risk, given the national specificities and risk profiles of different property markets in different countries and so on, but equally there could be a risk of contagion from poorly regulated property markets in some non-EEA countries. Those countries are not currently within the scope of these measures but will potentially be brought in by the Bill.
It would be helpful to be provided with a better understanding of the broader implications of the proposals in the clause than is currently set out in the explanatory notes. That is why we tabled amendments 52 and 54.
Mel Stride
The clause extends the definition of UK-related companies for the purposes of group relief to include non-UK resident companies within the charge to corporation tax. Non-UK resident companies are not simply those within the EEA but any company anywhere in the world.
Mel Stride
Yes. As the hon. Lady pointed out, clause 17 provides that a non-UK resident company that carries on a UK property business will be charged to corporation tax, rather than income tax, as we discussed earlier. This will deliver equal tax treatment for UK-resident and non-UK resident companies that carry on UK property businesses, including the application of anti-avoidance measures within the corporation tax regime, as I pointed out.
However, under the current rules, non-UK resident companies within the charge to corporation tax are not able to make use of group relief, which, as the hon. Lady described extremely well, is the mechanism by which a company is able to surrender its tax losses to another member of the group to relieve their taxable profits. Group relief is available to UK-resident companies and helps to ensure that the tax charged reflects the economic reality of the entire group.
The clause will extend the definition of a UK-related company for the purposes of group relief to include non-UK resident companies that are within the charge to corporation tax. This change will also apply to non-UK resident companies developing UK land that were brought within the charge to corporation tax from July 2016. The clause will ensure that the UK tax regime does not discriminate against non-UK resident companies. These changes come at a negligible cost to the Exchequer.
Amendments 51 and 53 would require a review of the impact of the clause on corporation tax receipts. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s certified assessment of the impact of the clause on corporation tax receipts has been estimated together with clause 17 and schedule 5, which we debated earlier. That is set out in table 2.2 of the 2018 Budget and will be updated in table 2.2 of the 2019 Budget.
Amendments 52 and 54 would require an analysis of the effects of the clause on the UK property market. The impact on the UK property market was considered in the design of the policy, but it is not expected to have any notable effect. The OBR did not consider that the clause, nor clause 17 and schedule 5, would have any impact on its UK property market forecast.
The clause is a necessary element of levelling the playing field between UK-resident companies and companies not resident in the UK. It provides for equal tax treatment so that companies in receipt of similar types of UK property income will face the same tax rules. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for the clarifications. It is important for the Committee to be aware that while this is part of a suite of measures to equalise tax treatment in terms of tax responsibilities, obviously the measure also provides some of the benefits of the UK tax system to non-EEA firms. Doing so could potentially increase the attractiveness of the UK property market for those non-EEA firms, which might be a good thing, but might also have other consequences. That is all I wish to say in response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Intangible fixed assets: exceptions to degrouping charges etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
The clause amends the corporate intangible fixed assets regime, which I will refer to as the IFA regime, to align the degrouping adjustment rules more closely with the equivalent rules in the chargeable gains code. The clause responds to concerns expressed during the Government’s consultation on the IFA regime, and in previous consultations, that the IFA degrouping adjustment is distorting how genuine commercial transactions are structured. The main criticism is that there are two different tax treatments for intangible assets, depending on whether the chargeable gains code or the IFA regime operates in respect of such assets.
The IFA regime provides corporation tax relief to companies on the cost of their intangible assets, such as patents or trademarks. The IFA regime, like the chargeable gains regime, allows groups to transfer assets between companies within the same group on a tax-neutral basis. That prevents gains or losses arising on transactions between companies within the same corporate group and reflects the fact that the group can constitute a single economic entity. Instead of recognising the market value of the asset on transfer, the company acquiring the asset inherits the tax history and costs of the transferor.
The rules contain an anti-avoidance provision which applies when an asset leaves the group. That is often referred to as a degrouping adjustment or charge. The degrouping adjustment effectively removes the benefit of a previous tax-neutral transfer to ensure the full economic gain or loss made by the group is taxed.
The chargeable gains tax code includes a similar set of rules, which were, however, amended in 2011 to refine the degrouping anti-avoidance rules where the sale of the shares in the degrouping company is exempt from a tax charge under the substantial shareholding exemption rules.
The clause seeks to address concerns commonly expressed by stakeholders during the recent IFA regime consultation and those raised during the 2016 review of the substantial shareholding exemption. Part 8 of the corporation tax code is amended so that the degrouping adjustment will not apply when a company leaves a group as a result of a share disposal that qualifies for the substantial shareholding exemption. That exemption applies only to disposals of trading companies, or parent companies of trading groups. In doing so, it aligns the clause with the treatment in the chargeable gains regime.
In summary, the clause makes a sensible change to the degrouping rules in the IFA regime to align them with the treatment elsewhere in the tax system. The clause responds to legitimate business concerns that existing legislation is distorting how genuine commercial transactions are structured. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to follow the many valuable contributions of other members of the Committee.
The clause that the Financial Secretary has just introduced forms part of a rather technical but important pack of items in the miscellaneous corporation tax section of the Bill. The provisions mark the latest change in a long history of reforms to the intangible fixed asset tax regime, which I will also refer to as the IFA, which began in 2002. Intangible fixed assets refer to items such as patents, copyright, brand recognition, goodwill and other items of intellectual property. It is clear that those types of assets, as opposed to tangible assets, have become increasingly important to modern businesses and are likely to continue to do so, especially for the tech industry.
Typically, such assets could be moved within companies that all belonged to the same UK group without incurring any new tax liability, by simply taking their existing tax history with them. If one of the companies that received the assets was subsequently sold within six years, that incurred the so-called degrouping charge. The clause will stop that charge being triggered if the company leaves as a result of a share disposal that would qualify for the substantial shareholding exemption.
In principle, the Opposition have no objection to the measure, which clarifies the intent of the legislation and prevents assets from being drawn into the regime unintentionally. The changes remove an artificial barrier in the tax system that could have been acting as a deterrent to merger and acquisition activity, given the disparity in treatment between chargeable gains assets and those within the IFA regime, as the Minister explained.
However, we would like to raise some wider concerns about the intangible fixed asset regime and how the new provisions will operate. Intangible assets will only grow in importance, so it is vital we get the system right. We must also consider the potential impact on foreign direct investment, especially at a time when our international competitiveness is under pressure as a result of us leaving the EU.
My questions to the Minister relate to what the impact of the changes might be on foreign direct investment and on merger and acquisition activity. I also want to ask about the impact on the UK intellectual property market, for two reasons. First, although we all want to see the best in Britain’s companies, we know that, unfortunately, certain operators seek to game the system, including by artificially shifting assets internally among subsidiaries, which is a time-worn tactic for unscrupulous actors seeking to avoid their true obligations. The long history of transfer pricing shows us that, as do the pitifully low corporation tax returns of some of the most profitable multinationals operating in the UK. By its very nature, transfer pricing—when companies make charges within a group for goods, services or indeed intangible assets—can be more easily exploited for that purpose, as can be seen from the role of brand loyalties in the transfer pricing arrangements of some famous tax minimisation schemes.
Tax rules have fallen short, and still fall short, of always recognising such arrangements for what they really are. We know that we suffer from a significant—and, some argue, underestimated—tax gap in the UK. As we often refer to in debates with the Government Front Bench, the tax gap has consistently fallen under Labour, coalition and now Conservative Governments, but we all know that the assessment does not truly cover such practices. Therefore, it is imperative that we do not put any loopholes into the statute book that could be exploited. Can the Minister explain what action the Government have taken to ensure that the measures cannot be undermined by tax avoidance?
Secondly, the measure is important in relation to the consultation published alongside this year’s Budget to look again at so-called goodwill taxation. Goodwill is the sum paid for a business over and above its paper value, which often has a strong connection to intangible assets such as brand value, reputation and other items of intellectual property. Stakeholders have expressed concern about the treatment of goodwill, which we ask the Government to consider as part of the overall IFA tax regime.
Although we supported the restriction of that relief for anti-avoidance purposes in 2015, it has been reported to us that some people believe that some aspects of the changes have had a dampening effect on commercial transactions and the overall attractiveness of the UK as a business location. Therefore, some further context around the proposal in the 2018 Budget to reverse part of those restrictions would be welcome.
I seek some reassurance from the Minister as to his future plans for the treatment of goodwill and how precisely this relief will be used as a tool to attract further business activity to the UK. Is an estimate available of the costs to the Exchequer at this stage? How has this been assessed, in terms of wider value for money, against perhaps extending other types of relief available? How will the connection between intellectual property and goodwill be properly established? In particular, how will the valuation of intangibles be achieved for tax purposes? What action is being undertaken with regard to anti-avoidance measures?
Continuing to attract business to the UK, as well as strong inward investment, is critical as we contemplate our departure from the EU. Therefore, we would appreciate some clarity from the Government on these provisions. We must assess their cost against the value of incubating the type of intellectual property-rich businesses that we would all like to see more of in the UK. Equally, we must do everything that we can to protect the statute book from any loopholes that may be exploited by unscrupulous companies seeking to avoid paying their fair share.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He asked specifically what impact these measures may have on foreign direct investment. I would argue that they are relieving, in that they are facilitating the ability of companies in these circumstances to gain value from the transfer of their losses where they genuinely fall under the substantial share exemption, so the answer to that question is that this is a positive move in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman asked, more specifically, a series of questions relating to how we would ensure that avoidance was not entered into in a number of scenarios. I think that he referred specifically to transfer pricing, for example, and one thinks of intangible asset elements such as royalty payments. He will be aware that we have already clamped down on the making of royalty payments through to low and no-tax jurisdictions. There is a lot of activity in that space, albeit that in the context of this clause, that is probably out of the scope of the measure that we are considering.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we were introducing a loophole, as he termed it. I think I can reassure him that we are not. We are simply, as I think he said when he summarised the clause at the start of his remarks, ensuring that intangible assets are treated in the right way when it comes to their transfer within and outside corporate groups.
The hon. Gentleman made several points surrounding our intentions in respect of goodwill and its treatment. To support UK investment in intangibles, the Government are introducing a targeted relief for goodwill in acquisitions of businesses with eligible intellectual property. We will legislate for that change through an amendment on Report, to allow for a further brief consultation on the detailed design of the policy. The consultation will seek to ensure that the proposed policy design achieves the Government’s objective to provide targeted relief for goodwill in the acquisition of IP-intensive businesses, and mitigates any unintended consequences.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Corporation tax relief for carried-forward losses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 26 makes technical amendments to the corporate loss relief rules introduced in 2017: they ensure that the rules function as originally intended and protect revenue by preventing companies from claiming excessive relief. When a company makes a loss, it can carry forward that loss and use it to offset its taxable profits in future years. The Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 reformed the UK’s loss relief regime. The main effects of that reform were as follows. First, the amount of profit that can be relieved by carried-forward losses is restricted to 50%, subject to a £5 million allowance. Secondly, losses arising after 1 April 2017 can be carried forward and set against different types of income and against profit of other members of the same group. The loss restriction ensures that companies cannot use carried-forward losses to reduce their tax bill to nothing in an accounting period in which they make substantial profits. Legislation for the new loss relief rules needed to be sufficiently detailed to ensure that they were robust for the complex arrangements of large companies operating across a diverse set of activities. The Government have since identified limited circumstances in which the rules are not functioning as intended.
The clause amends the way that companies calculate their relevant profits for the purposes of loss relief restriction. Specifically, the clause changes the way basic life assurance and general annuity businesses, or BLAGAB, calculate relevant profits. That will ensure that BLAGAB insurers use profits that are chargeable to corporation tax for calculating the amount of loss relief they can claim.
Jonathan Reynolds
I shall speak briefly on this clause. As the Minister said, the clause seeks to restrict relief for certain carried-forward losses and allow them to be used more flexibly. It then drills down into particular details for specific business segments: for instance, insurers require special consideration due to the shock losses they are uniquely exposed to.
Given the rather generous package of corporate support that the Government espouse and the ineffective corporation tax cuts, which we have already had an opportunity to discuss at length, the Opposition clearly have no issue with restricting excessive relief. However, this change appears to be a tidy-up measure on legislation that was only introduced in 2017, suggesting that the Treasury does not quite have a grip on this properly. Clearly, we would all like to see any mistakes on the statute book or in the tax code corrected, but could the Minister explain why this legislation needs correcting such a short time after its implementation? Should we perhaps anticipate further changes to the original legislation? What consultation took place with stakeholders at the time?
It seems that we have always known there were issues with this relief ever since it was first introduced, after consultation in summer 2016, in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017—perhaps the first Finance Bill for the shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, if he can segment them in his own mind—
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes, a classic. At the time, the Chartered Institute of Taxation warned that the legislation had not been given proper due consideration. As it said in its briefing:
“From the time the proposals were announced at Budget 2016 it was clear that the legislation would be voluminous and highly complex. As we highlighted in our response to the consultation (in August 2016) the timetable proposed was not sufficient to properly consider all of the issues and to produce clear and workable legislation.
The unsatisfactory draft legislation published as part of Finance (No. 2) Bill 2017 was then removed from the pre-election Finance Bill, which caused more uncertainty for taxpayers. Although the delay in enacting the legislation has allowed a period of further informal consultation, which has improved the legislation, it inevitably led to a degree of uncertainty among those affected and has also resulted in taxpayers having to consider draft legislation which is not yet in force,”
but which will be retrospective once enacted.
“With regard to the short timetable, it is also worth noting that these provisions are not anti-avoidance provisions”,
which is when we tend to use a shorter timeframe for introduction.
“Rather, the changes were proposed as part of a package intended to ‘simplify and modernise the tax regime’, although in our view there are aspects of the changes which are very complicated and, in many cases, will involve a large number of detailed calculations, meaning that simplification will not be achieved.”
That is probably true of much of what the Treasury does, to be honest. The briefing also said:
“Legislation for these new rules has, in our view, been ‘rushed’…and, in this case, the Government has not balanced its desires to raise some modest revenue with its duty to produce legislation that can be followed with predictability and certainty.”
Unfortunately, the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s assessment that the timeframe was too short turned out to be exactly correct, and that is why we are obliged to revisit this legislation today. Continuous tweaks to matters such as these do not help to instil confidence among businesses that rely on this framework. They need certainty in their long-term operation, and endless rounds of changes are not helpful, especially in an environment where Brexit is clearly causing significant wider uncertainty.
I should also be grateful to learn from the Minister what preventive measures have been put in place to ensure that we will not go through the same legislative process in another year’s time, with further nips, tucks and fixes to defects. Finally, I would just like to know whether an estimate is available of the cost up to now of businesses having claimed this relief, which the Minister himself has said may have been excessive, and which we are today removing.
Mel Stride
It is a perfectly fair question for the hon. Gentleman to ask why we are now having to revisit this, having consulted on it. He himself raised the issue of the large volume and the highly complex nature of the original legislation. I think therein probably lies the answer. While we did consult extensively, this was a large volume and a highly complex area, and we have subsequently discovered a deficiency with it, which we are now putting right, in a responsible way.
It is important to briefly enlighten the Committee as to the extent of the consultation that did occur, lest it be imagined that we rushed this or did not properly look into matters. The Government’s consultation ran for 12 weeks, from 26 May to 18 August 2016. The Government received 79 responses from stakeholders, and from a broad range of professions and industries. There was also a technical consultation on the draft legislation itself. It is obviously right that we put these deficiencies right at the earliest opportunity. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about how much revenue may already have been impacted by the original issue, I do not have a precise answer. I am happy to look into it. I know that the Treasury sees this clause as something that is there to protect revenues in the future, rather than one that is about rectifying problems that may have arisen in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 27
Corporate interest restriction
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 27 and schedule 10 make changes to ensure that the corporate interest restriction rules will continue to operate as intended, limiting the amount of interest expense and similar financing costs that a corporate group can deduct against its taxable income. The UK’s corporate interest restriction rules were announced at Autumn Statement 2016 and took effect from 1 April 2017. These rules prevent groups from using financing expenses to erode their UK tax base, where these expenses are not aligned with the group’s UK taxable activities. These rules are complex because they operate at both the worldwide group and individual entity levels. As businesses have begun to apply them, HMRC has identified some technical amendments that are needed to ensure that the rules operate as intended and to address practical compliance issues.
Clause 27 and schedule 10 make a number of technical amendments to the interest restriction rules. To ensure the rules are applied as intended, the schedule will clarify that real estate investment trusts are in scope of the interest restriction rules, but that they do not suffer a double restriction of financing costs where they are highly leveraged. It will confirm that where a company holds a significant pension fund asset or a deferred tax asset, or where the company is reimbursed for certain variable operating costs, it is not prevented from applying the alternative rules for public infrastructure. It will provide confirmation of how the rules deal with capitalised interest.
To ease the practical operation of the rules, the schedule will extend certain timings, in particular for appointing a reporting company and for submitting an interest restriction return, following an acquisition. The schedule will allow unused amounts and debt cap to be carried forward for a new holding company that is inserted into the group structure, but the shareholders of the group remain substantially unchanged. To align the rules more closely with the normal UK tax rules the schedule will require, where appropriate, employee remuneration that is not paid within nine months to be disregarded in the calculation of a group’s earnings, until it is paid. It will also amend the calculation of the group’s financing costs to ensure that it is not distorted when a debt is released by a company that is connected to the group but not in it.
Finally, this schedule will allow HMRC to specify information that is reasonably required for risk assessment purposes, which is to be included in the interest restriction return. This clause and the accompanying schedule make amendments to ensure that the interest restriction rule continues to operate as originally intended. I commend this clause and schedule to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
We have before us in clause 27 another tweak to the 2017 legislation, which originally brought about this change. The clause is designed to bring about technical amendments to the corporate interest restriction rules. Again, the Opposition are supportive of any measure that aims to correct the tax situation, which could potentially be exploited. These rules restrict the ability of large businesses to reduce their taxable profits through excessive UK interest.
The explanatory notes tell us that this is part of the Government’s policy to align the location of taxable profits with the location of economic activity—not before time, many people in the country would argue. We are very much looking forward to seeing the Government rigorously apply this approach to the multinational companies in the UK, which mysteriously report profits quite unrelated to their tax bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) recently calculated, Facebook’s corporation tax bill represents just 0.62% of its revenue here, as it pays £7.4 million in corporation tax on sales of £1.3 billion.
We are pleased that the Government have found the time to tidy up the statute book by implementing the measure before us today. Surely, the Minister must agree that there still appears to be one rule for big companies, such as Facebook, and another for everybody else. Rather than arguments about things such as the tax gap, which addresses things such as how much cash-in-hand has been paid for trade in services, this imbalance is what the public really want to see addressed. If there is one thing that the whole Committee might agree on, it is that we all welcome innovation and technology, and all the benefits they bring. However, part of what makes this country so lucrative for these big companies is our infrastructure, our legal system, our transport connections and our businesses, which want to be able to advertise on these platforms. It is not unreasonable for the likes of Facebook to contribute to that, just as every other business does.
The clause is clearly more modest than that, being, as I said, just a tweak to the 2017 legislation. It would have been infinitely preferable to get this right first time. The explanatory note sets out in detail the consultation process that was undertaken in relation to this legislation between 2015 and 2016. That seems to have discussed issues related to domestic implementation and, we must remember, will have been carried out at a cost to Her Majesty’s Treasury and, therefore, the taxpayer. Again I have to ask, what fell short in that process, so that we are discovering these defects in the Bill only one year later? Could the Minister provide some further insight on the further engagement with affected businesses that is mentioned in the explanatory notes?
Mel Stride
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s understandable question as to why we have to revisit this matter in this Finance Bill is similar to that which I gave in the context of the last clause—the complexity and the volume of the legislation. We published the draft legislation originally, so that it could be considered. I think it is right that we are now coming forward to make the necessary changes at this time. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his aspirations that the corporate interest restriction would bite and be effective. For that, I am sure he has looked at the amount that is scored for this particular measure—it is one of the more significant anti-avoidance measures that we have come forward with in recent times.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on the tax gap and sought, perhaps, to characterise the tax gap as being all about—I think he used the expression—cash-in-hand dealings, so as to suggest that it was not also about ensuring that large companies pay their fair share of tax. I assure him that we are constantly looking at larger businesses. The tax gap is disaggregated in a way that shows that. I reassure him that of the largest roughly 200 or 210 companies in the United Kingdom, about 50% are under active investigation at any one time. That does not mean in any way that any of them have done anything wrong, but that we do look at larger companies very carefully.
Jonathan Reynolds
I was simply trying to make the point that the tax gap is a series of estimates by HMRC as to avoidance in different areas—yes, for large companies as well as small. Surely, what the public really want action on—the Chancellor himself referenced this in his Budget speech—is the impact of very large technology companies internally charging vast amounts for intellectual property transactions within their groups and not reflecting their economic activity in a country the size of the UK.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I thank him for clarifying his comments on the tax gap. He asserts that the public expect us to take tax avoidance by large companies seriously. I assure him that that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have introduced more than 100 measures relating to avoidance, evasion and non-compliance since 2010. We have brought in and protected around £200 billion in that period. Of course, in this Committee we have debated at length both the diverted profits tax, which is bringing in more than originally anticipated and is aimed at exactly the businesses to which he refers, and the digital services tax. We are even changing the way in which the tax regime operates in order to ensure that we get a fair level of tax from those companies, whether they are the smallest businesses in the land or the largest.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 28
Debtor relationships of company where money lent to connected companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 28 is part of a package of changes that the Government are making to the tax rules for hybrid capital instruments, which are issued by some companies to raise funds. Further changes are made by clause 88. Together, those changes ensure that hybrid capital instruments are taxed in line with their economic substance and take into account forthcoming changes in financial sector regulation. The new rules cover issuances by companies in any sector and replace rules covering regulatory capital instruments issued by banks and insurers with effect from 1 January 2019.
Some companies raise funds by issuing instruments, referred to as hybrid capital, that sit close to the border between debt and equity. Hybrid capital instruments have features, such as provisions for write-down or conversion to shares in certain circumstances, that may affect their accounting and tax treatment. As a result, instruments that a company uses to raise funds externally may be taxed on a different basis from instruments used to distribute those funds internally to other group companies. Recent changes to financial regulation have highlighted that issue.
In June 2018, the Bank of England finalised its approach to setting a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—MREL. The Bank set out how it would use its powers to require firms to hold a minimum amount of equity and debt with loss-absorbing capacity from 1 January 2019. That will allow the Bank to ensure that shareholders and creditors absorb losses in times of financial stress, allowing banks to keep operating without recourse to public funds.
For banking groups, funding that counts towards MREL is usually raised from the capital markets by a holding company. The holding company passes on most or all of the funds raised to operating companies within the group. The Bank of England requires those intra-group loans to include terms that allow them to be written off or converted into shares at times of severe financial stress. That can result in the external and internal loans being treated differently for tax, leading to unintended tax volatility unrelated to the economic substance of the loans.
In the changes made by clause 28 and schedule 11, our overall aim is to eliminate that unintended tax volatility by ensuring that external and intra-group loans are taxed on the same basis if they have a qualifying link. A qualifying link arises when funds raised externally by a group are wholly or mainly lent within the group. Clause 28 and schedule 11 will ensure that external financial instruments are taxed on the same basis as intra-group loans to which they have a qualifying link. That will eliminate the tax volatility that can arise if the terms of the intra-group instrument contain hybrid features. That is expected to affect a small number of companies, mostly in the banking sector, that raise funds externally and lend them intra-group in circumstances that would otherwise give rise to a tax mismatch between those instruments.
These changes will ensure that our tax rules eliminate unintended and unnecessary tax volatility from financial instruments issued by any company. I therefore commend this clause and schedule to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
This clause changes the treatment of linked loan relationships in company groups. Put simply, that means that where one company borrows funds externally and lends on to another company in the group, no tax liability will be triggered by fluctuations in the value of the internal component of the loan. It stands to reason that companies should be protected from what might end up being double taxation. In reality, there is no economic exposure on the internal loan, whereas that does apply to the external arrangement, which remains within the scope of taxation.
Although this appears to be a relatively straightforward measure, will the Minister elaborate on what has prompted its inclusion in the Bill? Is there an assessment of its impact on the Exchequer? An example has been provided in the explanatory notes of the issuance of debt instruments by banking or insurance companies to meet regulatory capital requirements. Are there companies outside the financial sector that could be affected by these regulations? I think he said most but not all.
What engagement has taken place with the business community on these measures? We have seen from the two preceding clauses that unintended consequences can sometimes arise. If we are not vigilant of those first time round, legislation will have to be revisited, with endless amendments in subsequent Finance Bills.
The Opposition strongly believe that one of the best ways to make the UK an attractive place to do business is to create a robust, consistent, transparent and well-enforced corporation tax regime. Business prizes certainty—something that no one has been able to offer of late. We want to ensure that measures have been taken with the proper consultation and with proper justification, so that we do not endlessly increase the compliance burden of companies doing business in the UK.
Finally, and perhaps most critically, I refer to my earlier comments on transfer pricing in our discussions on clause 25. We all want to believe that this is a simple measure that tidies up the statute book. However, we must all be mindful that the shifting of assets and loans between UK subsidiaries has historically been abused by companies seeking to avoid tax. Have the Government done all due diligence possible to ensure that this clause is not open to such exploitation? Given the consequences of getting it wrong, we all share a duty to ensure that no loophole is left anywhere on the statute book.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman asks whether banks are solely affected by the changes; they go beyond banks but are most relevant to banks, driven as they have been by the changing requirements of the Bank of England and others on the operation of our financial service marketplaces. They are also driven by the importance of hybrid capital debt and how it is valued as it comes into the holding company, and the way debt might be valued as it is passed down in the companies beneath the holding company at the top.
The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation and the importance of getting the proposals right; there has been no public consultation on this clause due to time constraints—one has to bear it in mind that the Bank of England finalised the requirements for internal loss-absorbing instruments only in June. That has not given us much time to consult. We have informally consulted with a small number of trusted advisers ahead of the Budget announcement. HMRC and HMT have worked closely with the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority to ensure that alignment between the tax and regulatory rules is as close as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 29
Construction expenditure on buildings and structures
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 29, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
“(14) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the consultation undertaken on Clause 29.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 58, in clause 29, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
“(14) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the relief that will be created as a result of the exercise of the powers in this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the changes made by Clause 29.
Amendment 59, in clause 29, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
“(14) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the uptake of the relief that will be created as a result of the powers in this section by the groups set out in subsection 15.
(15) The groups that must be considered under the review in subsection 14 are—
(a) companies with between zero and nine employees,
(b) companies with between 10 and 250 employees, and
(c) companies with more than 250 employees.
(16) A report of the review under subsection (14) must be laid before the House of Commons no later than 12 months after the first exercise of the powers under this section.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the uptake of this relief among micro-businesses, SMEs and large companies.
Amendment 60, in clause 29, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
“(14) No draft instrument may be laid under this section until the Treasury has carried out a consultation with stakeholders on the qualifying arrangements for the relief that would be created as a result of the powers in this section.”
This amendment would require the Treasury to carry out a consultation with stakeholders on the qualifying arrangements for this allowance.
Clause stand part.
Jonathan Reynolds
I will speak to Labour’s amendments to clause 29, which opens up the new section on capital allowances. It is always right and sensible to think about ways to promote business growth in the UK, but allowances like the ones in these clauses are not free. The Committee must judge them in the context of what represents good value for money. We will talk about each of them as we move through the clauses.
These clauses also represent a significant round of chopping and changing reliefs, but in our view businesses are really asking for certainty. The changes are many and varied, and the constant shifting of the goalposts creates costs and complexity for businesses. Given that the Government’s central case for reducing corporation tax is that they are trying to increase corporate investment, which has not happened, it seems strange to have a set of policies reducing and incentivising capital allowances to do exactly the same thing. I have spoken to a number of concerned stakeholders who have told me that there has been little or no consultation on some of these measures.
The lack of consultation on the allowance in clause 29, in particular, is worrying. The initiative was announced with immediate effect on the day of the Budget— 29 October. Stakeholders have raised the valid concern that it remains framework legislation with none of the detail necessary for proper scrutiny—not just by the Opposition but by industry and the people whom the Bill will directly affect. Presumably the Government did not preannounce the measure to ensure that no investment decisions were delayed in anticipation of it, but they must be clear about what business will be getting. Immediate implementation is an important power in the Treasury toolkit, but it is usually an anti-avoidance measure. It is hard to see how that applies in the case of this allowance. It has simply generated more opacity about what will qualify.
We are talking about a big item of spend. Businesses need to be able to attach numbers to their construction plans, and they need absolute clarity about what qualifies as expenditure and what does not. The regulations do not yet specify what “qualifying use” is. The allowance is also a big-ticket item for the Exchequer. According to the Red Book, by 2023-24 it will cost more than half a billion pounds—£585 million—yet we cannot be 100% sure about that number because there is so much uncertainty about what the exact scope will be. Labour’s amendment 58—I urge hon. Members to support it when we press it to a vote—requests that the Government review the revenue effects of the relief so we can fully assess its costs.
As professional bodies have argued, it would have made much more sense to do this process in reverse. The Government are only now seeking views on the relief, with a view to changing it via secondary legislation in 2019. Anyone who has had the pleasure of sitting on any of the Brexit-related Delegated Legislation Committees will agree that there is as large pile of statutory instruments to get through, so adding to that is a strange decision.
Why did the Government not consult before they drew up the legislation? A concern that stakeholders have raised with me is that businesses cannot have confidence in the new relief during the consultation period as the detail is not yet known. That seems a strange way to encourage investment. We believe that one of the problems that is likely to be revealed in the consultation is the complexity of the measure. As tax professionals have warned, the relief will introduce another type of asset classification for tax purposes. The Office of Tax Simplification advised against that when it reviewed capital allowances. Why are the Government contravening the recommendations of the report that they commissioned? Tax simplification has generally been of considerable interest to Conservative Members, but they appear to be ignoring the review. Given the lack of consultation, will the Minister elaborate exactly how the conclusion was reached that the relief would cost £585 million? What evidence is there that it will promote investment in productivity?
I also urge hon. Members to support Labour’s amendment 57, which would oblige the Chancellor to lay before the House a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in this clause so that we can get as clear grasp of the concerns they are targeted at. Amendment 60 goes further and states that no draft instrument can be laid under this clause until consultation is carried out with stakeholders on qualifying arrangements for relief. It must work for all the businesses it is targeted at.
In addition, amendment 59 would oblige the Government to disclose how the take-up of the relief is distributed among microbusinesses, SMEs and large corporations. We must be able to assess whether this relief is of genuine value to small businesses or is yet another poorly targeted giveaway.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak very briefly on this clause. The questions that have been asked by the Opposition are incredibly useful and interesting ones; they have gone into this matter in some detail. Given the amendments that they have put forward, the SNP will be happy to support any of them that are pressed to a vote.
Mel Stride
May I address very directly the question that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has posed regarding consultation and the level of consultation before the announcement, which of course he recognises is in part at least due to the fact that on announcing this measure we do not want to have forestalling in terms of businesses taking investment decisions?
Indeed, with matters or measures of this kind, we have a number of things that we need to balance. As I say, we need to ensure that businesses do not delay investment; we also have to give businesses the certainty they need that the measures will actually be implemented; and we are of course consulting on the technical details, including the very pertinent issue of the qualifying use that he referred to. And we will of course consult on the draft legislation when it is brought forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the figures and the cost of this measure, and how that cost has been established. The OBR will score these measures in the normal manner. He also made the specific point about the desirability of these reliefs being available to construction projects and other qualifying activities overseas. Of course one should make the point that that would occur only where it was on the part of a company that fell due to the UK corporation tax charge, and would reflect exactly the same situation in reverse, were it to be, say, a French business constructing something in the United Kingdom and in turn receiving reliefs from the French tax authorities. So it is a kind of equality of treatment in those particular respects.
The UK was previously the only G7 economy that gave no capital relief on structures and buildings. The CBI’s recent report, “Catching the peloton”, asked the Government to explore how the incentive regime could support investment in commercial buildings. [Laughter.] I am assuming that this is some kind of sub-atomic particle that requires a Large Hadron Collider, or whatever these things are, to be built, with huge tax reliefs associated with it.
The Government recognise the importance of providing tax reliefs for genuine business costs, supporting investment and growth, and driving our future prosperity. Therefore, this relief will reduce the cost of doing business in the UK, alongside our corporation tax reductions.
The changes made by clause 29 will give the Government the power to introduce secondary legislation, as we have discussed, to provide capital allowance on the costs of non-residential structures and buildings. Key features of the policy are outlined in the technical note published on Budget day, which invites businesses to express views on detailed aspects of this policy.
This legislative process will provide taxpayers with certainty that the allowance will come into force as soon as possible, while allowing the Government to consult on important policy decisions. The new relief will provide businesses with an additional £1.9 billion of tax relief in the next six years, growing to £2 billion annually by year 50. The allowance will be available to any unincorporated or incorporated business that builds a new structure or a building, or that acquires one directly from a developer. The allowance will apply across all sectors and sizes of UK trade, improving our collective economic position as we go into 2019 and beyond.
Amendments 57 and 60 seek to commit the Government to carry out and lay before the House a report on the consultation with stakeholders on arrangements for the allowance. The Government, however, have already invited stakeholders’ views on the detailed aspects of the allowance, and have made it clear to the public that a further technical consultation will be issued on the draft secondary legislation. That is set out in the technical note, published alongside the 2018 Budget.
Amendments 58 and 59 seek a Government review of the revenue effects and the uptake of the relief among different-sized businesses. The estimated revenue effects have been published in the Budget 2018 document. The relief is expected to provide £1.9 billion of additional support over the next six years to businesses of all sizes. That figure has been subject to detailed challenge and to the scrutiny of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Amendment 58 requests that the Government lay a report on the revenue effects before the House within six months of the enactment of the Bill. That would not be technically possible, due to the time needed for businesses to make new claims and for the Government to carry out the necessary analysis. However, HMRC publishes annually the cost of capital allowances claimed and the capital allowances available, split by asset type and by industry, in the “Estimated costs of the principal tax reliefs” and “Corporation Tax Statistics” documents. Those publications will include the new allowance costs as soon as sufficient data are available. I therefore urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
To make an appropriate level of progress, with the leave of the Committee, I will not press all amendments save for amendment 59. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 59, in clause 29, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
‘(14) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the uptake of the relief that will be created as a result of the powers in this section by the groups set out in subsection 15.
(15) The groups that must be considered under the review in subsection 14 are—
(a) companies with between zero and nine employees,
(b) companies with between 10 and 250 employees, and
(c) companies with more than 250 employees.
(16) A report of the review under subsection (14) must be laid before the House of Commons no later than 12 months after the first exercise of the powers under this section.’—(Jonathan Reynolds.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the uptake of this relief among micro-businesses, SMEs and large companies.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 30, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on impact of the amendments made by this section on CO2 emissions from plant and machinery operated in the United Kingdom.
(10) A report of the review under subsection (9) must be laid before the House of Commons by 1 April 2020.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this Clause on CO2 emissions from plant and machinery, and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 62, in clause 30, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on impact of the amendments made by this section on the prices of—
(a) household heating and electricity, and
(b) insulation material.
(10) A report of the review under subsection (9) must be laid before the House of Commons by 1 April 2020.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this clause on the cost of heating, electricity and insulation material and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Amendment 63, in clause 30, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on impact of the amendments made by this section on the automotive market in the United Kingdom.
(10) A report of the review under subsection (9) must be laid before the House of Commons by 1 April 2020.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this Clause on the automotive market in the UK and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on impact of the amendments made by this section on the level of investment in plant and machinery included as special rate expenditure, where such plant and machinery was made before April 2019.
(10) A report of the review under subsection (9) must be laid before the House of Commons by 1 April 2020.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this clause upon business decisions to invest in eligible plant and machinery made before April 2019 and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Amendment 65, in clause 30, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section.
(10) A report of the review under subsection (9) must be laid before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this clause.
Clause stand part.
Jonathan Reynolds
The clause proposes reducing the special rate for qualifying plant and machinery assets from 8% to 6%. It is reassuring to see something in this package of measures that raises some revenue, but it represents another small change to the way businesses are asked to operate. It is more change, more complexity and less certainty, all at a very difficult time for British business. I understand that this measure, as the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, has been introduced in part to fund the buildings allowance outlined in clause 29, which we have just discussed.
One of the problems with a change like this is that businesses make their plans on the basis of what tax rates are when they make those decisions. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned, this gives the rate
“an element of retroaction, as investment decisions may have been taken on the basis of an 8% rate of allowance”
that is now being shifted to 6%. In its words:
“Tinkering with rates and allowances in this way undermines the principles of stability and certainty and as a result reduces the international competitiveness of the UK’s tax system.”
The Chartered Institute of Taxation also highlights the potential flaw in the logic that people will be able to balance off one cut against another:
“The impact of this change in rate will be different for different businesses.”
Any business that is unable to take advantage of the new structure and buildings allowance will find that it is simply worse off. It is therefore concerning that no prior consultation took place regarding these measures, so we simply do not know the different ways in which businesses might be impacted, or what they will make of these various allowances.
For that reason, the Opposition have tabled a package of amendments to dig deeper into what the impact of those changes will be. Amendment 65 prompts the Government to present to the House a report on any consultation that was undertaken with regards to this measure. As I have just stated, we have significant concerns about how little consultation was carried out regarding any of these measures, and the potential problems that might arise in implementation, given the scope of what is being proposed. We need to know what opinions were sought from the companies this will impact upon, and how those opinions were taken into account, if at all. Further to that, amendments 62 and 63 call for specific reviews of how the special rates will impact on both the use of household insulation—which would be included as an integral feature—and the automotive industry. Higher-emission vehicles would attract the lower rate of relief, rather than the full relief of 100% for lower-emission vehicles.
That brings me to the huge missed opportunity in this clause to promote business investment in green technologies. If the Government are going to endlessly tinker with this regime, why not do it to benefit green investment? Amendment 61, connected to this, would oblige the Government to publish a review of the CO2 emissions that result from investment in plant and machinery at the special rate. I urge Members to support this amendment, which is critical to showing us the potential environmental impact of this change, and will allow us to assess what we can achieve by promoting relief through investment in cleaner technology.
According to the Government’s own statistics, published in March 2018, carbon dioxide emissions from the business sector accounted for 18% of all emissions in 2017. While there has been a laudable 41% drop in carbon dioxide emissions from the business sector since 1990, we all know that we have to do more, as quickly as possible, to achieve the change that is so urgently needed to avert climate catastrophe. I therefore urge all Members to vote in favour of these amendments, to give us the information we need to get a clear picture of the impact this will have on business, industry and the environment.
Mel Stride
Clause 30 makes changes to ensure that the capital allowances special rate is reduced from 8% to 6% from April 2019. The change will improve the alignment between the rate at which the special rate pool assets were written down for tax purposes and depreciation in business accounts, which is part of the rejoinder to the hon. Gentleman’s charge that we are introducing greater complexity. We are actually aligning those rates in a way that will inject some further simplification.
The change made by clause 30 will provide businesses with the same amount of relief overall, but over a longer period. Under the new rate, businesses will receive relief on 50% of the cost of special pool assets within 11 years, compared with eight previously. The vast majority of businesses will be unaffected by the rate reduction, because expenditure on new special pool assets qualifies for the annual investment allowance every year. The temporary increase of the annual investment allowance to £1 million for the next two years will further help businesses to bring forward their investment, and write it off in full in the first year. The change is expected to raise £1.6 billion in revenue over the next six years.
The capital allowances package announced in the 2018 Budget will provide around £1 billion of additional support to businesses over the next six years. That change, combined with the new structures and buildings allowance, will make our capital allowances system more balanced by moving the relief from an area in which the rate was relatively generous to an area in which no relief was previously available.
Amendments 61, 62 and 63 would commit the Government to reviewing the impact of the rate reduction on CO2 emissions from plant and machinery, the prices of insulation material, household heating and electricity, and the automotive market. The Government have already published a tax information and impact note for the reduction. I assure hon. Members that the careful consideration of impacts is a standard process for all tax policy changes.
The Government’s commitment to meet the emissions reductions target has never been stronger. The Climate Change Act 2008 provides a world-leading governance framework, which already ensures that our overall progress is robustly monitored and reported to Parliament. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde pointed out, benchmarked against 1990, there has already been significant progress. The Committee on Climate Change provides regular advice to the Government on how best to achieve our targets, and on the impact of existing policies.
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Temporary increase in annual investment allowance
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 31, page 18, line 4, at end insert—
‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on the estimated impact of the provisions of this section and Schedule 12 on the level to which businesses claim annual investment allowance.
(4) The review shall in particular compare the estimated impacts of increasing the annual investment allowance for—
(a) the period specified in subsection (1), and
(b) the period of three years beginning with 1 January 2019.
(5) A report of the review under subsection (3) must be laid before the House of Commons within three months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the estimated impact of the provisions of this clause, and compare them to the estimated impact of extending the temporary AIA relief for an additional year.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 67, in clause 31, page 18, line 4, at end insert—
‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on the impact of the provisions of this section and Schedule 12 on businesses able to claim annual investment allowance.
(4) A report of the review under subsection (3) must be laid before the House of Commons by 1 April 2020.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the provisions of this section and report on that impact by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Amendment 68, in clause 31, page 18, line 4, at end insert—
‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on the costs and benefits of extending the increase in annual investment allowance beyond the period specified in subsection (1).
(4) A report of the review under subsection (3) must be laid before the House of Commons within 3 months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the costs and benefits of extending the increase in AIA relief beyond two years.
Amendment 69, in clause 31, page 18, line 4, at end insert—
‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section and Schedule 12 within two months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this clause.
Amendment 70, in clause 31, page 18, line 4, at end insert—
‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must make a statement to the House of Commons within 2 months of the passing of this Act on the matters specified in subsection (4).
(4) Those matters are—
(a) the results of any analysis undertaken by the Treasury regarding the provisions of this section and Schedule 12,
(b) any evidence that he is aware of that supports the provisions of this section having a positive economic benefit, and
(c) any evidence that he is aware of that does not support the provisions of this section having a positive economic benefit.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the evidence base for the temporary AIA increase.
Amendment 71, in clause 31, page 18, line 4, at end insert—
‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons an analysis of the distributional and other effects of the provisions of this section and Schedule 12 on companies of different sizes.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before the House of Commons an analysis of the distributional and other effects of the provisions of this section on companies of different sizes.
Clause stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am pleased that we have got on to this clause, which is one of the most substantial in the Bill. As it stands, it will increase the annual investment allowance from a one-off £200,000 to a substantial £1 million for two years.
To be frank, it feels like the limit has been increased to try to lessen some of the damage that has been inflicted on the country by the Government’s Brexit negotiating approach, but the constant chopping and changing of such an allowance risks mitigating the benefits of the allowance entirely, because it presents a regime that is impossible for companies to plan around as it is constantly shifting. By my count, the allowance has now changed five times in the 10 years since it was introduced.
The measure is not cheap; it carries a significant up-front cost. The Red Book that accompanied the 2018 Budget estimates that the cost of the allowance will be up to £1.24 billion. Some of that is projected to be recouped in the three years after it is introduced, but there is still £760 million of lost revenue after six years.
The structure of the allowance favours bigger businesses to such an extent that it could penalise small businesses by making it impossible for them to spend even the lower £200,000 allowance. These businesses are unlikely to ever get near to the full £1 million allowance, but they face the ludicrous situation whereby their capacity to use even the pre-existing lower £200,000 allowance will be restricted. This is a complicated point, but I will try to properly explain it.
The legislation has been quite poorly drafted, with a disregard for small companies. The Opposition believe that, with just a simple change via an amendment, it could be easily fixed. However, because of the Government’s undemocratic approach, which we have talked about and which has prevented us from tabling substantive amendments, it is actually not possible for us to propose anything other than a review. I will therefore use this speech to urge the Minister to consult the Treasury on implementing a quite simple change to the legislation to prevent it from having the opposite effect to that which was intended.
The annual investment allowance has been subject to numerous tweaks, which is often unhelpful in promoting a regime of certainty and stability. One particular problem posed here is that the allowance has been designated for a very specific period—1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. However, many companies operate a different accounting period, typically in line with the tax year but in some cases with particular dates suited to their specific activities.
The problem that this poses is that the allowance period will not match up with the accounting period. If a company’s tax year does not match the fixed timescales of this allowance, there needs to be what is called a straddling calculation for the way the allowance is split over both timescales, because it will change. It will go from being an annual calculation to a daily one. The legislation makes specific provision for this straddling period.
I might need a whiteboard to explain this to the Committee, but I will try my best without one. I have kindly been supplied with a real-world example by a professional body. Imagine if a company with a tax year that ended in March had spent £60,000 just after the allowance period had ended. Owing to the straddling calculation, it would be entitled to relief on only £49,315 of that expenditure, even though the expenditure was well below the existing £200,000 allowance and clearly lower than the new higher limit. Had the company incurred that expenditure evenly throughout the year, or indeed before 1 January 2021, the full expenditure would have been relieved. I may have to put this in writing to the Minister to make it clear.
The simplest way to fix this issue would be to give small businesses the chance, if they wished, to opt out of the new limit, so that they did not get caught between the two periods. We know from HMRC’s own statistics that small businesses rarely ever get close to using the full allowance as it stands, let alone needing the new £1 million threshold. It makes no sense to penalise them with a higher rate that they will never be able to utilise.
What consultation was undertaken regarding this measure? This issue should surely have been caught at an earlier stage, or even pre-empted, given that it occurs every time the allowance threshold and periods shift. Given that the regime has been subject to many changes already, the Opposition have tabled amendments requesting a package of reviews that would oblige the Government to disclose the impact on businesses eligible to claim the allowance.
Our amendment 66 requests a review of the estimated impact of the provisions on the level to which businesses are claiming the allowance, assessing the take-up in the different periods to see whether the increase in the allowance is really worth while. Amendment 68 drills down further into the costs and benefits directly, which is essential given the substantial amount of revenue involved in this change. Amendment 69 asks the Government to put before the House a consultation on the provisions within two months of the Bill’s passage. This is essential so that we can hear directly from small businesses that will be affected by the point I just raised.
We need to understand, from a distribution perspective, who is taking up this relief and why. We need to know the details of who will use it and how it will benefit them, so that we can properly assess its impact. We also need to correct the change to the thresholds, which seems reasonable, given that businesses have been affected by previous changes and will certainly be affected by this one. I therefore urge all Members to vote for our package of amendments, which will give the Committee the information it needs to make the right call on this substantial and significant change.
Mel Stride
I will deal with two points raised by the hon. Gentleman before I speak more broadly to the amendments under consideration and the clause itself. On the issue of consultation, where we have an additional relieving measure coming in, where one would consult on it well in advance, one would expect the market to see the change coming and, therefore, forestall on activity as a consequence, in order to ensure that it benefited from the reliefs being brought in. For that reason, these kind of measures in general, and this one specifically, would not be appropriate to the kind of consultation that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
The hon. Gentleman raised the specific issue of the way the straddling arrangements operate. Even in the absence of a whiteboard, he did a pretty good job of explaining the conundrum that he referred to. His example is well made: one could end up in a situation with a relatively limited relief available, because of straddling. However, the answer to that is that one would know about it in advance and, therefore, adjust the arrangement of one’s affairs accordingly.
Clause 31 and schedule 12 will temporarily increase, as we know, the AIA limit to £1 million from its current level of £200,000 from 1 January 2019 for two years. The AIA allows businesses to deduct the full cost of qualifying expenditure up to a specified annual limit or cap, where anything above this will be relieved at 18% in successive years. Where businesses spend more than the annual limit, any additional qualifying expenditure will attract relief under the normal capital allowances regime, entering either the main rate or the special rate pool, where it will attract writing-down allowances at the main rate or special rate respectively. This change responds to a consistent ask from business groups such as the Confederation of British Industry, Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce. The increase will provide a timing benefit, giving businesses 100% first-year relief on qualifying plant and machinery investments up to the value of £1 million.
The changes made by schedule 12 will increase the current AIA amount for two years. It is expected to cost £685 million over the scorecard, with positive returns to the Exchequer from 2021-24. This will provide an incentive for those businesses already spending up to the £200,000 threshold to increase or bring forward their capital expenditure on plant and machinery, by providing a cash flow benefit.
Amendments 66 to 68 and 71 seek a review of the impact of this temporary increase. These reviews would concern the number of businesses affected, the distributional impact, and the cost and impact of extending the increase to three years. By definition, this clause has a positive impact on businesses and business investment, enabling more firms with qualifying plant and machinery expenditure to claim 100% first-year relief. This also makes tax simpler for businesses making qualifying investments up to £1 million, which will not have to account for individual assets.
Much of that information is also available in the tax information and impact note, and policy costings note, published at Budget 2018. These notes include details on business impacts, including for companies of different sizes, and projected costs of the temporary increase. The change has been limited to two years given our continued need to consider the right balance between our fiscal, tax and spending objectives in order best to support the economy, while keeping debt falling and increasing fiscal resilience. This means maintaining fiscal discipline, which involves decisions such as keeping this higher level of AIA temporary rather than permanent. I therefore urge Opposition Members not to press the amendments.
Amendment 69 would commit the Government to publishing a report on consultation undertaken for this provision. No consultation was undertaken for this temporary change. It is important that this increase begins promptly following any announcement or engagement, in the way that I suggested in my earlier remarks.
Amendment 70 seeks a statement on the evidence base for the economic impact of this change. Prior to the Budget, the Government received representations from a range of businesses and business groups calling for this measure and outlining the positive impact an increase in the AIA amount would have on investment behaviour. Through this increase, the Government are giving even more businesses access to 100% first-year relief. I commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.